House of Commons
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(3 years, 3 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, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
Mr Speaker, before I begin, I hope you will not mind, but I just want to send my very best wishes to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and to Minister Edwin Poots from the Northern Ireland Executive for a full and speedy recovery for both of them.
I would also like to send best wishes to President-elect Joe Biden on the inauguration later today. He is a man who has a strong personal connection with the island of Ireland. We all know that the US has been a huge supporter of the peace process in Northern Ireland for many decades.
I am pleased that the UK Government are the majority contributor to the Peace Plus programme. We have committed to providing over £500 million between now and 2027, which will fund activities that promote peace and reconciliation. The framework for Peace Plus is in development now, but we remain as a Government committed to that Peace Plus programme and to engaging with key partners to ensure that, once agreed, it will have maximum impact for all the people of Northern Ireland.
James Sunderland
As we enter the centenary year for Northern Ireland, it would of course be easy to reflect upon a history that has been characterised at times by division. Given the possibilities of the new EU trade deal, of dual trade in Northern Ireland and relative peace and prosperity, does my right hon. Friend agree that we should be looking forward with confidence as one Union?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. As Northern Ireland enters its centenary year, it is the right time to shine a light on what makes it so special as we look to a bright future. Fostering economic growth and social cohesion is key to building a stable and prosperous future for Northern Ireland. I was pleased to be able to announce the £400 million of new money, in the new deal for Northern Ireland just before Christmas, to help boost economic growth, competitiveness, infrastructure and the social fabric. We are planning an exciting programme to promote Northern Ireland’s potential across the United Kingdom, and also internationally.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
From recent engagement with victims’ groups, their overriding concern is that the scheme be open for applications as quickly as possible. We share that objective, and I will continue to work with the Executive’s delivery of this scheme. We must make sure progress is not diverted by any red herrings. This is a devolved matter, and devolved matters are funded from the block grant. The Executive need to step up and fund this scheme. The Department of Finance in the Northern Ireland Executive needs to step forward and to get the independent fiscal council organised to provide that independent advice and scrutiny to help them on these budgetary matters.
Andrew Gwynne [V]
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Eighteen months ago, I was proud to play my part in finally delivering the payment to victims who had campaigned for decades for redress for the unimaginable suffering they endured during the troubles. The fact that it still has not been delivered, though, should shame us all. So does the Secretary of State agree that failing to deliver on these promises to victims will do immense damage to trust, and when will he act to ensure that those promises are kept in Northern Ireland?
Brandon Lewis
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate—being, as he outlined, part of the process—we are all proud to have got this moving forward. He is absolutely right: I think there is a moral as well as a legal and an ethical duty to ensure that the victims are able to access that programme of work. I know the work is ongoing to do that. In the Department of Justice, the Minister there is passionate and determined about that, as is the First Minister. One of the frustrations I had in 2020, I have to say, was the fact that it took a court case to get the Deputy First Minister to even designate a Department. That simply was not good enough. The Department of Finance now needs to ensure that it does not play games with victims and their pensions and payments, and that that money is made available to the Department of Justice to get on and deliver this programme.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) [V]
May I first, on behalf of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, echo my right hon. Friend’s opening comments this morning? I welcome, too, as he has, the movement on the historical institutional abuse payments, but he will be aware that there are other issues with regard to legacy remaining outstanding and long overdue. I know he is consulting on these at the moment. Can he give a commitment that that consultation will have concluded, any draft legislation will be published and a route plan to delivery will be in the public domain by the time the House rises for the summer recess-?
Brandon Lewis
To my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee, I have to say that this is to the huge credit of the Committee and the work it has done. The recent piece of work it has done looking into legacy has been immensely helpful. There have been some very useful contributions in that. He is quite right: we are engaging widely on this issue at the moment. Obviously, this was delayed, as we were all—across both the Irish Government and the UK Government, the Northern Ireland Executive and of course in communities—focused on covid over the course of last year, but that work is now ongoing, and I certainly intend and hope to be able to fulfil the timeline that he has just set me as a target.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab) [V]
May I join the Secretary of State in sending the best wishes of the whole House to the former Secretary of State and to the Minister, Edwin Poots?
Victims of the troubles have been badly treated in the last year in particular and are fast losing confidence in whether we will all deliver on the promises we made to them in this House. The troubles pension was legislated for in Westminster, it applies to victims across the UK and beyond, and we simply cannot wash our hands of our responsibility, so will the Secretary of State urgently meet with the relevant Ministers in the Executive to discuss meeting the upfront costs of the scheme, which he must accept are not reasonable to be funded out of the block grant, and ensure that the pension too many have waited decades for will finally be delivered?
Brandon Lewis
I am sure the hon. Lady will be aware that I meet with Executive Ministers on a regular basis, whether the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister or indeed the Justice Minister, who is taking this work programme forward, and who I have to say is doing a very good piece of work. She is still, as of the last conversation I had with her, on target to have the administrative structure in place—I think her intention is by the spring, or late March—in order to allow victims to apply for the scheme. She has also been very proactive as the owner of this portfolio in engaging with victims’ groups both directly and, as I am sure we have all seen, on social media, so I think they are very much aware of the work she is doing to get this progressed. I have said to her that I will continue to give her my full support. The UK Government have shown our support through not just the approximately £15 billion of block grant but the £918 million uplift that we secured through the spending review. I look forward to seeing the details as the Executive are able to work through exactly what they think this scheme will cost. It is a priority for the Executive—it is clearly a part of “New Decade, New Approach.” It is a devolved matter. I look forward to seeing exactly what the Department of Finance in the Northern Ireland Executive is putting into this priority to deliver it for those victims, as is required.
Louise Haigh
I am sure the Justice Minister and other Ministers who have been pursuing a meeting with the Secretary of State on this issue for some time will be pleased to hear that he has now committed to that.
Another issue of confidence for victims is the delay in the publication of the Shawcross report, which the Secretary of State’s Government commissioned, into compensation for victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA terror. Why are the Government refusing to publish this report and fulfil their promises of compensation for victims?
Brandon Lewis
First, I would just correct the hon. Lady: what I actually said was that I have been talking to the Justice Minister—I spoke to her just a few weeks ago—and she raises the victims’ payments issue quite widely on a regular basis. Obviously, I talk to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister very regularly—often more than once a week—on a range of issues, including this one.
We recognise the very sensitive issues that are raised in the scoping report Mr Shawcross has produced. Ministers are now carefully considering the internal scoping report in order to ensure that we can do justice to the important and sensitive issues that it covers and to give due respect to the victims it is working for. We as a Government are working hard to ensure that across these issues we are doing everything we can to make sure that the victims get the support that they need.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
Good progress has been made in implementing the “New Decade, New Approach” deal, despite the challenges that have been posed by the ongoing public health crisis. The Government have released over £550 million of the £2 billion of funding agreed in the deal. That has already delivered multiple commitments over the last year, including appointing a veterans commissioner, launching the shared history fund as part of our programme to mark the centenary of Northern Ireland, and establishing the governance structures that underpin NDNA.
Scott Benton
Last January, the Government made a commitment in the “New Decade, New Approach” agreement to introduce legislation within 100 days to address legacy issues. The current delays in bringing forward proposals are understandably causing concern among those veterans who served in Northern Ireland and are rightly anxious to bring an end to the vexatious prosecutions of former British servicemen. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are indeed still committed to bringing forward legacy proposals, despite the inevitable delays as a consequence of the current pandemic?
Brandon Lewis
Absolutely. We will bring forward legislation to address the legacy of the troubles in a way that focuses on reconciliation, delivers for victims, ends that cycle of investigations that is not working for anybody, and ends unwarranted vexatious claims against former British soldiers. These proposals will deliver on our commitment to Northern Ireland veterans. We will provide a fair, balanced and proportionate system for all those affected by the events of the past. As my hon. Friend rightly says, progress on this has, as with other priorities, been affected by covid-19, but we are now moving forward, and we intend to move forward as quickly as we can, ensuring we are working across all communities.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP) [V]
I echo the Secretary of State’s comments in relation to the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), and my constituency colleague, Edwin Poots. Our thoughts and prayers are with them both.
Paragraph 11 of annex A of the “New Decade, New Approach” document commits the UK Government to negotiating flexible arrangements for trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland under the Northern Ireland protocol, yet that has not happened. We have seen over the first few weeks of January the enormous difficulty that the protocol is causing for consumers and businesses alike in Northern Ireland. What is the Secretary of State going to do to resolve this problem?
Brandon Lewis
The right hon. Gentleman and I share a strong desire to ensure that we keep trade flowing as smoothly as possible, with unfettered access, as we promised, for Northern Ireland businesses, which we have delivered, and that we have a smooth flow from Great Britain into Northern Ireland as well. I will continue to work closely with him and his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive to do so.
It is important that we do not overstate some of the issues. That does not mean that there are not issues; I appreciate that there have been challenges. The grace periods, though, are working well. Goods are moving, and we are working closely with traders as they adapt, particularly here in Great Britain. Our focus is on taking this work forward to ensure that we can deal with the issues here permanently, continuing to take a pragmatic and proportionate approach in maintaining Northern Ireland’s integral place in the UK internal market. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right; as the Prime Minister rightly said last week, we will not resist using article 16 if it is appropriate and right to do so.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I support the comments made by others earlier in this Question Time about the need for the UK Government to work with the Executive to deliver the payment scheme for victims, but there is another aspect of New Decade, New Approach that requires Government commitment, and that is the full implementation of the armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State assure me that when the armed forces Bill comes forward in Parliament soon, Northern Ireland will be treated on exactly the same basis as the rest of the United Kingdom, with full implementation of the armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland?
Brandon Lewis
Yes. Further strengthening of the armed forces covenant in law is both an NDNA commitment and a manifesto commitment for the Government, and we are determined to deliver on that; the right hon. Gentleman is quite right. The Ministry of Defence is working closely with my Department and the devolved Administrations to draft legislation that will ensure that no former member of the UK armed forces is disadvantaged as a result of their service, and we are determined to deliver for the whole of the UK.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
A pragmatic and proportionate approach has been taken to implementing the Northern Ireland protocol, protecting unfettered access to the whole of the UK market for Northern Ireland businesses, supporting businesses to adapt to new requirements, delivering additional flexibilities, and ensuring that the protocol’s operation reflects Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances.
Goods continue to flow effectively and in normal volumes between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Initial issues, which I accept there have been, are being addressed in consultation with businesses, and that work will continue. We recognise the importance of a strong economy and strong social as well as economic links for Northern Ireland with the whole of Great Britain as part the United Kingdom, and we need to ensure that they are impacted as little as possible in everyday lives. The protocol itself sets out that very fact.
Rachael Maskell [V]
But it is not working. The Northern Ireland Secretary has denied that there is a border; the Prime Minister has denied that there are border checks, yet the queues and chaos confirm that there are both, with new customs declarations and rules of origin, while businesses have had insufficient preparation time and support. Can the Secretary of State categorically say when—that means on what date—there will be seamless movement of goods across the border? I fear that many in the supply chain will not withstand more chaos.
Brandon Lewis
I am not quite sure what the hon. Lady is referring to, because what she describes is not what is happening in Northern Ireland; queues are not the issue. There have been reports of empty shelves, which is absolutely true. I have also heard Welsh Ministers talk in meetings about empty shelves in Wales, which we all saw, partly as a result of the challenges at Dover and the Dover straits just before Christmas due to covid. There have been issues for parcels and parcel deliveries, because the guidance, I fully accept—I have outlined this—was published on 31 December, but that is not what the hon. Lady outlined. It is important that we work pragmatically and sensibly, looking at where the issues are, to ensure that we find a way through them, working with business, so that we get a permanent resolution and the protocol can work and deliver the smooth, free flow of trade that we all want to see and that is important for Northern Ireland.
Kerry McCarthy [V]
It sounds to me like the Secretary of State has not been listening to the Road Haulage Association, which has warned that supply chains to Northern Ireland are close to collapse because of the problems with the new processes at the borders. As he says, there have been scenes in Belfast of empty shelves in supermarkets, but there have also been reports of hauliers losing huge amounts of money because lorries are having to return to Northern Ireland empty. Will the Government listen to the Northern Ireland logistics sector and take urgent action to address that?
Brandon Lewis
As I said in my previous answer, we are working with the industry on some of the issues it is facing. There is a range of different things. The issue the hon. Lady referred to—vehicles moving from Great Britain back into Northern Ireland—is about ensuring that Great Britain businesses are engaged. I encourage businesses to engage with the Trader Support Service. Companies that have used it have found it a really good, easy way to ensure the free flow of goods. It is why supermarkets are able to get that good flow of products through. Companies such as Marks and Spencer have seen a really good flow through. I encourage companies to sign up to this Government-supported and paid-for scheme.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told me last week that there is an issue with groupage, but at the same time he said that lorries were able to get into Northern Ireland without hindrance. Obviously, both those statements cannot be right. The experience of Northern Ireland hauliers will feel very familiar to Scottish hauliers and exporters. James Withers, chief executive of Scotland Food and Drink, has referred to “crippling” red tape. It is clear that the UK Government are simply not on top of the Brexit problems at border crossings. How will the Secretary of State resolve groupage issues and the disruption which is causing such difficulty for businesses and consumers?
Brandon Lewis
As I said in answer to previous questions, a range of issues have come together at the same time: companies who made commercial decisions before the deal was secured and before even the protocol was agreed before Christmas, let alone the guidance notes on parcels, and of course the covid challenges we have had. We have had a few issues come together in early January at the same time. We are working through all those issues with businesses, including ensuring that Great Britain businesses are signed up to the Trader Support Service and the Movement Assistance Scheme so they understand their ability to flow products into Northern Ireland. All those businesses and people will continue to ensure and support the fact that the Government secured a good deal with the EU. It is just a shame that the Scottish nationalists decided to vote against it and effectively wanted to see no deal, which would have seen real chaos across both Northern Ireland and Scotland.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) [V]
I thank the Secretary of State for the considered engagement he has had over the past seven to 10 days on the issue of steel. The Secretary of State knows just how important aerospace is not only to my constituency but to the Northern Ireland economy as a whole, with £1.9 billion-worth of activity each year. ADS is concerned about the additional tariff which is now being placed on goods considered to be at risk for the aerospace sector, yet when the raw materials are brought into Northern Ireland for processing, they can then subsequently leave Northern Ireland tariff free because of the air worthiness agreement. There is an issue on these raw materials. They are not at risk for onward transit. I would be very keen for the Secretary of State to agree this morning that he will engage on this issue as constructively as he has with steel.
Brandon Lewis
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. He has been a strong and passionate supporter and promoter of the sector for the benefit of Northern Ireland for a very long time, and I think everybody can recognise that. He outlines some specific details. We have been very clear that there should not be any tariffs on internal UK trade. We will make full use of waivers and reimbursements to minimise the impact on business in any scenario. I will be very happy to engage with the sector directly, and with him and any other colleagues, on this issue. We have pledged £1.95 billion for aerospace research and development through to 2026, alongside £125 million in grants to be awarded through the Future Flight Challenge. There is an opportunity for the industry and I would be keen to work with him to ensure we can deliver on that for the people of Northern Ireland.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) [V]
I thank the Secretary of State for his words about Edwin Poots. Everybody here is rooting for the Minister in his battle. Has the Secretary of State given any thought to structures he can use to engage with the Irish Government on the protocol and other relevant issues now that they are not meeting within EU frameworks? Specifically, does he think the British-Irish Council or the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference can be used more constructively going forward?
Brandon Lewis
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments on Edwin Poots. I had a communication with him this morning, and he is determined and focused on continuing to do his good work for the people of Northern Ireland and having a good and full recovery, as I know my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) is.
The hon. Lady is right: there are a range of ways, as she has outlined, that we can continue to engage, and we are determined to do so. I know that the Taoiseach, like the Prime Minister, is very keen to build a good, strong friendship and partnership with our closest neighbours in Ireland. I talk to Minister Coveney on a regular basis. We also have quad meetings with the Northern Ireland Executive, me, Simon Coveney and other Ministers where relevant, so we have a good join-up. We are determined to work together to make sure we do that for everybody across Ireland and all the United Kingdom.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Robin Walker)
The Secretary of State and I continue to hold regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues and the devolved Administrations on this crucial issue. Although each devolved Administration controls their own public health policy, we have been co-ordinating our responses to covid, seeking alignment in policy and approach where appropriate to ensure that measures safeguard the health and wellbeing of the whole United Kingdom. Our commitment is demonstrated through the UK Government’s procurement of vaccines and tests on behalf of all parts of the country, working with the devolved Administrations to ensure that they are deployed fairly across the UK.
Rob Roberts
Obviously, the world-leading steps that the Government have taken to acquire and roll out the vaccine have benefited every part of the United Kingdom. Will my hon. Friend confirm that Northern Ireland is benefiting, and will continue to benefit, from this vaccine roll-out, which is only possible if our devolved Administrations continue to work together as one Union?
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I am pleased to see that Northern Ireland now has the highest vaccination rate in the UK, and, indeed, across any jurisdiction in Europe, with almost 6% of the population having been vaccinated. This clearly demonstrates the strength of the Union when we, as four nations, all work together. To date, over 114,000 people in Northern Ireland have successfully been vaccinated, including care home residents and health and social care staff. The vaccination programme began on 8 December, and by 6 January the mobile teams had visited 91% of care homes and achieved uptake levels of 90%-plus for residents and around 80% for staff.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Robin Walker)
There are a number of important strands to our centenary programme, including historical understanding and engagement, and supporting trade and investment, which showcase Northern Ireland’s rich potential. We also want to focus on the future, especially Northern Ireland’s young people, and will ensure that their voices are heard in the centenary programme. We recently announced £3 million to support this work, including a £1 million shared history fund, supporting the engagement of non-profit organisations across the UK with the centenary. We are continuing to develop the centenary plans and will publish them further over the coming months.
Antony Higginbotham [V]
The year 2021 marks 100 years since the creation of Northern Ireland, which paved the way for the formation of the United Kingdom as we know it today. In Burnley and Padiham, we are proud Unionists and want to share in the celebration of this momentous date, so will my hon. Friend set out what steps he is taking to make sure that all parts of the United Kingdom can share in this celebration?
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. Given the significance of this anniversary, we want to ensure that marking the centenary has a lasting legacy both in Northern Ireland and right across the UK. The shared history fund will support the engagement of a wide range of arts, heritage, voluntary, community and other non-profit organisations across the whole United Kingdom. We are engaging with Departments across Government, including the other territorial offices, the Cabinet Office and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, as we continue to drive forward on this and other elements of our centenary programme.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Robin Walker)
I recognise the hon. Lady’s work on this important issue and appreciate the engagement that we have had on it to date. Regulations have been in place to make provision for safe and lawful access to abortions since 31 March 2020. Some service provision has been available since last April, with over 719 women and girls having been able to access services locally by mid-October last year. We take our moral and legal duties on this matter very seriously and remain disappointed that full abortion services remain to be commissioned by the Department of Health, which would be the most appropriate way to progress the matter. We continue to monitor the situation closely.
Stella Creasy [V]
It is a very familiar situation. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and a vulnerable woman have been left with no option but to take the UK Government to court to ensure access to abortion at home—except we are in a different situation, because this House voted to require the Secretary of State to uphold these women’s rights and ensure that they could access abortion at home. With clear evidence that over 100 women have been refused abortions and that they are buying pills online again, will the Secretary of State and Ministers confirm that they will act to uphold UK legislation, save the UK taxpayer court costs and act to intervene now?
Mr Walker
I can confirm to the hon. Lady that we continue to engage with the Minister of Health and his Department on commissioning full services, and have been since the regulations came into effect. We remain of the view that this is the most appropriate way to progress the matter. I am pleased that the Northern Health and Social Care Trust was able to resume services early this year, and I am hopeful that the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust will soon be able to do so as well. The Government continue to fund access to services in England, particularly where local access may not be available; even in the current circumstances, some women and girls have availed themselves of those services. We continue to monitor the situation closely and will consider further legislative action at Westminster at the appropriate time, should it be required.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) [V]
Members across this House, and indeed the country, will be shocked that women are still not able to fully access these services, and that the services are still not being commissioned. It is unconscionable that women are travelling, against Government advice, during a pandemic because of a lack of service. I hear what the Minister says. I welcome his work on this issue, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) said, we seem to be back here again. Every day is a tragedy for women in Northern Ireland who have to travel. Will the Minister expand on his comments? What will he consider doing and, crucially, how soon will he act?
Mr Walker
I recognise the strength of feeling behind what the hon. Lady says. It is the right of women and girls in Northern Ireland to access healthcare, including high-quality abortion care, in the full range of circumstances set out in regulations. I believe, as I think she does, that those rights should be the same across the United Kingdom. We continue to engage with the Minister of Health and the Executive on this, and we believe that this is best progressed by the Executive. However, I reiterate that we will closely monitor the situation, and we will absolutely consider whether further legislation is required by this House.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) [V]
I am grateful to the Minister for his recent correspondence on this issue. There is considerable support in Northern Ireland for the change in the law, but unfortunately political games are being played. While local action is better, will the Minister confirm that he will not let this issue slip indefinitely, and that he will act within a matter of months if no action is taken by the Northern Ireland Executive?
Mr Walker
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments. He is one of those who has pressed hard on this issue. We recognise the urgency of this matter, but we also recognise the huge challenges facing the Executive, and indeed every part of Government, relating to the covid situation. We want progress on this issue. We would prefer that to be delivered by the devolved institutions, but as I said, we stand ready to act if that progress is not made.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]
It is still a matter of deep regret that the overwhelming view of the people of Northern Ireland, in wanting to protect life, was and is still disregarded by those in this place. I take a contrary view to the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry). On implementing what the Government term adequate abortion provision in Northern Ireland, is the Minister concerned that under Northern Ireland’s abortion regulations, sex-selective abortion is permitted? The regulations permit abortion for any reason up to 12 weeks, within which time it is possible to determine the sex of the foetus. What measures will he take to address this matter of deep concern?
Mr Walker
I recognise that the hon. Lady has taken a consistent and firm position on this issue. The Government take this issue seriously. It is about protecting the rights of women and girls. The regulations in Northern Ireland, as she will recognise, do not make any reference to sex-selective abortion. They follow the same approach as those in the rest of the UK on this issue. The Government publish an annual analysis of the male-female birth ratio for England and Wales to see whether any evidence of this issue arises. The latest reports show no evidence that this is an issue in England and Wales. We will continue to report on the sex birth ratio, and will work with the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency to consider including Northern Ireland in this analysis in future years. In the meantime, we will continue to monitor the implementation of the regulations, and urge the Executive to move forward with commissioning.
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Prime Minister, may I express, on behalf of the House, our best wishes to President Biden and Vice-President Harris on this, their inauguration day?
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
Mr Speaker, I know Members from across the House will want to join me in echoing you in congratulating President-elect Biden on his inauguration later today. I said when I spoke with him on his election as President that I looked forward to working with him and his new Administration, strengthening the partnership between our countries, and working on our shared priorities for tackling climate change, building back better from the pandemic, and strengthening our transatlantic security.
Our sympathies also go out to those affected by the latest floods, and I want to thank the Environment Agency and our emergency services for the work they are doing to support those communities. I will be chairing a Cobra meeting later on, to co-ordinate the national response. This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House, I will have further such meetings later today.
Alec Shelbrooke [V]
May I start by fully associating myself with all the Prime Minister’s opening comments? Will he join me in welcoming the fact that free school meal pupils in Elmet and Rothwell will continue to receive free lunches over the forthcoming school holidays, thanks to the winter grant fund provided to Leeds City Council by this Government?
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. I can confirm that eligible pupils in Leeds will continue to receive free school meal support over the February half-term. This Conservative Government have given over £2 million to Leeds City Council through the covid winter grant scheme to support vulnerable families in the coldest months, and it is the intention of this Government, on this side of the House, that no child should go hungry this winter as a result of the covid pandemic.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
May I also welcome the inauguration of President Biden and Vice-President Harris? This is a victory for hope over hate, and a real moment for optimism in the US and around the world. I also thank all those on the frontline helping to deliver the vaccine, including the NHS, who are doing so much to keep us safe under the most extraordinary pressure.
It is 10 days since the Home Office mistakenly deleted hundreds of thousands of vital criminal records, including fingerprints, crime scene data and DNA records, so can the Prime Minister tell the House how many criminal investigations could have been damaged by this mistake?
The Prime Minister
The Home Office is actively working to assess the damage. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know from the urgent question that was held in the House only a few days ago, it believes that it will be able to rectify the results of this complex incident, and it hopes very much that it will be able to restore the data in question.
Keir Starmer
That is not an answer to my question, and it was the most basic of questions. It was the first question that any Prime Minister would have asked of those briefing him: how many criminal investigations have been damaged? So let me ask the second basic question that any Prime Minister would have asked of those briefing him. How many convicted criminals have had their records wrongly deleted?
The Prime Minister
I answered the first question entirely accurately. We do not know how many cases might be frustrated as a result of what has happened, but I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that 213,000 offence records, 175,000 arrest records and 15,000 person records are currently being investigated because they are the subject of this problem.
Keir Starmer
I have a letter here from the National Police Chiefs Council. It makes it clear that 403,000 records on the police national computer may have been deleted. In addition to that—[Interruption.] Prime Minister, this is from the National Police Chiefs Council. I am sure he has been briefed on this. In addition to that, we are talking about 26,000 DNA records from the DNA database and 30,000 fingerprint records from the fingerprint database, so this is not just a technical issue. It is about criminals not being caught, and victims not getting justice. This letter makes it clear that data from criminals convicted of serious offences is included. This has impacted live police investigations already, and it includes records, including DNA, marked for indefinite retention following conviction for serious offences—the most serious offences; that is why it is marked for indefinite retention. It has been deleted.
Is the Prime Minister seriously telling us that 10 days after the incident came to light, he still has not got to the bottom of the basic questions, and cannot tell us how many cases have been lost, how many serious offenders this concerns, and how many police investigations have been investigated?
The Prime Minister
It is becoming a feature of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s questions that he fails to listen to the answer I have just given. Let me repeat this, because I think he gave a figure of 413,000. I have just done some maths briefly in my head, and if you add 213,000 to 175,000, plus 15,000, you get to 403,000. If only he had bothered to do that swift computation in his head he would have had the answer before he stood up and claimed not to have received it. It was there in the previous answer.
Of course it is outrageous that any data should have been lost, but as I said in my first answer, which I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman heard, we are trying to retrieve that data.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister complains about not listening to answers, but the figure I quoted was 403,000—that will be in Hansard. [Interruption.] I said 403,000, plus 26,000, plus 30,000.
Prime Minister, let me try the next most simple question that you would have asked of anyone briefing you. How long will it take for all the wrongly deleted records to be reinstated to the police database?
The Prime Minister
That will depend on how long it takes to recover them. I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that people are working around the clock, having been briefed on this both by my staff and by the Minister for Crime and Policing. We are working around the clock on this issue. Any loss of data is, of course, unacceptable, but thanks to the robust, strong economy that we have had for the past few years, this Government have been able to invest massively in policing to drive crime down, and that is the most important thing of all. I have no doubt that we will be able to continue to do that by relying on excellent data.
Keir Starmer
This morning, the Home Secretary said that the Home Office is still washing through the data. She said it does not know where the records are and, if you can believe it, they may have to be “manually re-entered”, which will obviously take a long, long time. The letter from the National Police Chiefs’ Council also makes it clear that the obvious places to reinstate from—the DNA and fingerprint databases—have themselves been compromised, so the Prime Minister’s answers need to be seen in that light.
Let me turn to another of the Home Secretary’s responsibilities. Last night she told a Conservative party event, and these are her words:
“On ‘should we have closed our borders earlier?’, the answer is yes, I was an advocate of closing them last March.”
Why did the Prime Minister overrule the Home Secretary?
The Prime Minister
I think, last March, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, along with many others, was actually saying that we did not need to close the borders, but as usual, Captain Hindsight has changed his tune to suit events.
It is interesting that his first few questions were about a computer glitch in the Home Office, which we are trying to rectify as we are in the middle of a national pandemic. This country is facing a very grave death toll, and we are doing everything we can to protect the British public, as I think he would expect. That is why we have instituted one of the toughest border regimes in the world. That is why we insist that people get a test 72 hours before they fly. They have to provide a passenger locator form, and they have to quarantine for 10 days, or five days if they take a second test.
I am delighted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman now praises the Home Secretary, which is a change of tune, and I am delighted that he is now in favour of tough border controls, because last year he was not. Indeed, he campaigned for the leadership of the Labour party on a manifesto promise to get back to free movement.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister talks of hindsight. What the Home Secretary said last night is not disputed. It is not disputed—this is not hindsight—that she said last March that you need to shut the borders. She was saying it, so I repeat the question that the Prime Minister avoided. Why did he overrule the Home Secretary, who claims that she said last March that we should shut our borders?
The Prime Minister
We have instituted one of the toughest border regimes in the world, and it was only last March that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, along with many others in his party, was continuing to support an open border approach. I must say that the whole experience of listening to him over the past few months has been like watching a weather vane spin round and round, depending on where the breezes are blowing. We are getting on with tackling this pandemic through the most practical means available to us, rolling out a vaccine programme that has now inoculated 4.2 million people in our country, whereas he would have joined the EU scheme, I seem to remember. He attacked the vaccine taskforce, which secured the supplies on which we are now relying. And he stood on a manifesto at the last election to unbundle the very pharmaceutical companies on whose breakthroughs this country is now relying. The Opposition continue to look backwards, play politics and snipe from the sidelines. We look forwards and get on with the job.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for everything he does to fight for the interests of the people of Aylesbury. I can confirm that we are on track to deliver our pledge, although I must stress to the House that it is very hard because of constraints on supply. We are on track to deliver a first vaccine to everyone in the top four cohorts by mid-February, including the people of Aylesbury.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) [V]
This afternoon, millions around the world will breathe a massive sigh of relief when President Joe Biden and Vice-President Kamala Harris are sworn into office. The democratic removal of Donald Trump gives us all hope that better days are ahead of us—that days will be a little bit brighter. Turning the page on the dark chapter of Trump’s presidency is not solely the responsibility of President Joe Biden; it is also the responsibility of those in the Tory party, including the Prime Minister, who cosied up to Donald Trump and his callous world view. This morning, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) accused the current Prime Minister of abandoning moral responsibility on the world stage by slashing international aid. So if today is to be a new chapter—if today is to be a new start—will the Prime Minister begin by reversing his cruel policy of cutting international aid for the world’s poorest?
The Prime Minister
I think it is very important that the Prime Minister of the UK has the best possible relationship with the President of the United States—that is part of the job description, as I think all sensible Opposition Members would acknowledge. When it comes to global leadership on the world stage, this country is embarking on a quite phenomenal year. We have the G7 and COP 26, and we have already led the world with the Gavi summit for global vaccination, raising $8.8 billion. The UK is the first major country in the world to set a target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050—all other countries are following, and we hope that President Biden will join us. We are working to promote global free trade, and of course we will work with President Biden to secure the transatlantic alliance and NATO, which of course the Scottish nationalist party would unbundle—I think they would; I do not know what their policy is on our armed services, but I think they would break them up. Perhaps they would like to explain.
Mr Speaker
It is the Scottish National party, Prime Minister. I know you keep having a memory lapse on it.
I call Ian Blackford. [Interruption.] I think we have somehow lost Ian Blackford; we will come back to him.
I call Nicola Richards.
Mr Speaker
Yes. Get the question in—the Prime Minister is desperate to hear it.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) [V]
Good afternoon Mr Speaker. May I add my warmest of welcomes to President Biden and Vice-President Harris on their inauguration in Washington today?
In answer to my question in July, the Prime Minister promised an independent inquiry into the UK’s response to covid. In the six months since, covid cases have soared, our NHS is on its knees, and 50,000 more people have died. The UK now has one of the highest death rates in the world—higher, even, than Trump’s America. To learn the lessons from what has gone so devastatingly wrong under his leadership, will the Prime Minister commit to launching this year the inquiry that he promised last year?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman answered his own question with the preamble that he set out. The NHS is under unprecedented pressure. The entire British state—including virtually every single arm of officialdom—is trying to fight covid and to roll out the biggest vaccination programme in the history of our country. The idea that we should consecrate vast state resources to an inquiry now, in the middle of the pandemic, does not seem sensible to me, and I do not believe that it would seem sensible to other Members. Of course we will learn lessons in due course and of course there will be a time to reflect and to prepare for the next pandemic.
Ian Blackford [V]
I think people would find the Prime Minister’s claims about the UK’s global leadership a bit more believable if last night he had not ordered his MPs to vote down an amendment to the Trade Bill that would have prevented trade deals with countries that commit genocide. Genocide is not a matter of history; it is happening in our world right now. The international community has stood idly by as Uyghur Muslim men, women and children are forced into concentration camps in China’s Xinjiang province. Yesterday, the outgoing US Secretary of State officially said that genocide was taking place, and the incoming Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, agrees with his view. Is the Prime Minister prepared to follow that lead? Is he prepared to stand up today and clearly state that genocide is being committed against the Uyghur population in China? If he is, will he work urgently with the new Biden Administration to bring the matter to the UN Security Council—
Ian Blackford
So that international pressure can be brought to bear on China?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the attribution of genocide is a judicial matter, but I can say for myself that I regard what is happening in Xinjiang to the Uyghurs as utterly abhorrent, and I know that Members from all parties in the House share that view. I commend to the right hon. Gentleman the excellent statement made recently by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on what is happening there, the steps we are taking to prevent British commercial engagement with goods that are made by forced labour in Xinjiang and the steps we are taking against what is happening.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in all sincerity, what he would propose by way of a Scottish national—not nationalist but national—foreign policy: would he break up the FCDO, which, after all, has a big branch in East Kilbride?
Nicola Richards [V]
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to warn us of the need to continue to inoculate our populations and ourselves against the wretched virus of antisemitism, which has a tendency to recur and re-infect societies, including, tragically, our own. I am very happy to join her in encouraging all Members to ask all schools to do what the excellent Q3 Academy in Great Barr is doing and to tune in to the event that she mentions.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
There could be no more fervent and effective advocate for the people of Rother Valley than my hon. Friend, and I am sure that he has much support for his campaign for a police station. I hope that a solution can be found. In the meantime, I can reassure him that we are making sure that there will be the police officers—the policemen and women—to put in that police station, because, as he will know, we are delivering on our commitment to have 20,000 more police over the lifetime of this Parliament.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) [V]
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Lady may know from what I said to the Liaison Committee several times, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Actually, there is more transit now taking place between Larne and Stranraer—Cairnryan, than there is between Holyhead and Dublin, because it is going so smoothly.
Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
Yes indeed. My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point, and we have been talking intensively about that with the scientists over the past days and weeks and also in the past few hours. We are confident that the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency will be in a position to turn around new applications for new variants of vaccines, as may be required to deal with new variants of the virus.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) [V]
Mr Speaker
I call the Prime Minister; we have to get through the questions.
The Prime Minister
I could have heard almost any amount about the rich food-producing parts of West Lancashire: the hon. Lady is entirely right, and we will protect those areas. She is entirely right to call for flood defences. That is why we put £5.2 billion over six years into flood defences, including the Crossens pumping station refurbishment scheme that she mentions, in which we have invested £5.7 million to protect nearly 4,000 homes.
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
The potential of the greater south-west is enormous, particularly in the areas of blue and green technology. My hon. Friend can be assured that we will be giving massive investment in infrastructure to support the green industrial revolution in the south-west as well as in all parts of the UK.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) [V]
The Prime Minister
It is absolutely true that some British fishermen have faced barriers at the present time owing to complications over form-filling. Indeed, one of the biggest problems is that, alas, there is a decline in appetite for fish in continental markets just because most of the restaurants, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, are shut. But the reality is that Brexit will deliver, and is delivering, a huge uplift in quota already in the next five years. By 2026, the fishing people of this country will have access to all the fish in all the territorial waters of this country. To get them ready for that Eldorado, we are investing £100 million in improving our boats and our fish processing industry, and getting fishing ready for the opportunities ahead.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
Absolutely. I know that my hon. Friend knows of what she speaks. She is completely right to say that they are partners in care and should not be considered as visitors. That is why the current guidance has been put in place—and yes, we will be monitoring it to ensure that it is observed.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I can tell the hon. Lady, who I know has campaigned hard and well on behalf of her constituent, and quite rightly, that we are working virtually round the clock to secure the release of all the dual nationals that concern us in Tehran. Without going into the details of the cases, which are, as she knows, complex, we are doing everything we can to secure what we regard as the completely unjustified detention in Tehran of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, although, as the hon. Lady knows, she is now out on furlough, admittedly in the conditions that she describes.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a great advocate for his constituents in Colne Valley, and I much enjoy my exchanges with him. I thank him for what he says about those groups. We must rely on what the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has to say and the priorities that the experts have decided, but of course we want to see those groups that he mentions vaccinated as soon as possible. I am very pleased that in spite of all the difficulties in supply, last week we gave 1.5 million people their first dose, up half a million on the week before.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for what he has done just now to draw attention to the scheme, but I must say that I respectfully disagree with him about the ignorance in which our wonderful EU nationals have been, because 4 million of them have successfully applied and been given residence, thanks to the scheme we have instituted. It is a great success, and we pay tribute to the wonderful EU nationals in our country who do a fantastic job for this country.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
Indeed. I remain a champion of liberty in all its aspects, but I am also the living embodiment of the risks of obesity. There is no question but that it is a comorbidity factor in the pandemic. I think that is something that the people of this country understand. They understand that it is all of our individual responsibility to do what we can to get healthy and to stay healthy, because that is one of the ways we can all help protect our NHS.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) [V]
Doctors, researchers, experts, campaigners and my constituents, of whom just under two-thirds are from BAME backgrounds, including a large Bangladeshi population, have all observed the covid-19 pandemic disproportionately affecting BAME communities. The Royal College of General Practitioners has even requested that these communities be prioritised for vaccine roll-out. Will the Prime Minister finally recognise that this disparity is as a result of structural racism, and can he outline what his Government are doing to address the issue?
The Prime Minister
I do not agree with the hon. Member’s last point, but she makes a very important point about the need to reach hard-to-reach groups in society. That is why it is so important that the vaccine roll-out is not just conducted by the NHS, the Army, pharmacies and volunteers, but in co-ordination with local government at all levels, because it is local government that will know where we need to go, as I am sure she would understand, to ensure that we reach those groups we must vaccinate and who may be a little bit vaccine hesitant, as the jargon has it.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
I have every sympathy for the residents of Stafford who have been affected by flooding and for everybody who has been affected by flooding in the latest bout. What I can say to my hon. Friend is that the Environment Agency is working hand in glove with her local authority and other partners to find a particular solution to the flooding in Sandon Road and Sandyford Brook.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) [V]
My constituency is served by two local councils. Recently, Bexley has taken emergency action to shed hundreds of jobs, while Greenwich needs to make £20 million of cuts in its upcoming budget. Last year, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government promised councils “whatever it takes” to get through the pandemic, so why is the Prime Minister dropping a council tax bombshell and asking my constituents to pay for his promises?
The Prime Minister
The last time I looked, Bexley was a Conservative council and Greenwich was Labour, which may explain part of the problem. The reality is that we are supporting every council, with £4.6 billion of support for local government so far during the pandemic. The hon. Lady raises council tax. Perhaps she could have a word with her friend the Mayor of London, who is threatening to put up his council tax by 10%.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) [V]
The announcement by my right hon. Friend that the G7 summit is to take place in Carbis Bay in June presents a tremendous opportunity for my constituency and, of course, the Duchy of Cornwall. I thank the Prime Minister for this. Does he share my belief that the G7 summit offers the perfect opportunity to secure a global commitment to embrace and accelerate our ambitious low-carbon industrial revolution?
The Prime Minister
I do indeed. I believe that the G7 summit in Carbis Bay will be an opportunity to not only bring the world together to tackle covid, to build back better, to champion global free trade and to combat climate change but also to showcase that wonderful part of the United Kingdom and all the incredible technological developments happening there, such as Newquay space port, Goonhilly earth station and lithium mining. Cornwall led the way—I think the Romans mined tin in Cornwall, did they not? I have a feeling they did, and, indeed, the copper mines there were at the heart of the UK industrial revolution. What is going on in Cornwall today shows that Cornwall is once again at the heart of the 21st-century UK green industrial revolution.
Mr Speaker
I am suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Serious Criminal Cases Backlog
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before I call the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) to ask his urgent question, I remind all hon. Members participating in these exchanges that it is important that no reference should be made to individual cases in a way that prejudices current and prospective criminal proceedings.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on the backlog of serious criminal cases in the justice system.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
The covid pandemic is truly unprecedented. It has affected every corner of our lives—from hospital operations delayed, to schools closed, to businesses struggling and even to how Parliament itself operates, we have seen covid’s effects. The court system is no different: bringing people safely into buildings for trials—especially jury trials—and hearings is a difficult thing to do. That is why so much has been done to keep delivering justice in these difficult times.
We have invested £142 million in upgrading court buildings and technology, alongside £110 million to increase capacity, making an investment of over a quarter of a billion pounds in court recovery this year. We are hiring 1,600 extra staff. We have opened 19 new Nightingale courts, with 35 new courtrooms. As of today, we have over 290 covid-safe jury trial courtrooms—substantially more than before the pandemic. We have installed plexiglass screens in 450 courts to protect users. We have installed cloud video platform technology in 150 magistrates courts and 70 Crown courts, allowing 20,000 remote hearings per week.
In the first lockdown, and as these measures have been put into place, backlogs have, understandably, developed. That has been the case across the world. But the fruits of our labours are now being seen. We have been faster than almost every jurisdiction to recover and we believe that we were the first country in the world to restart jury trials, back in May. Since August, the magistrates court backlog has been relentlessly reducing, month on month. Crown court jury trials are obviously much harder, for reasons of social distancing, but even there, in the last four weeks before Christmas, Crown court disposals exceeded receipts for the first time since covid began. At this very moment, as we stand here, about 230 jury trials are taking place. The joint inspectors’ report said earlier this week:
“It is a real testament to the criminal justice system that in spite of the pandemic…service was maintained.”
I pay tribute to the judges, magistrates, jurors, witnesses, victims, lawyers, court staff, Crown Prosecution Service staff and Ministry of Justice officials who have made that monumental effort to deliver justice in spite of covid.
We will not rest. We are adding more courtrooms, further increasing remote hearings, and examining options for longer operating hours. We are also taking action to mitigate the impact on victims and witnesses, this year providing an extra £32 million of funding and next year an extra £25 million of funding, including for rape and domestic violence victims.
This year has been incredibly difficult in the courts, as in so many places, but through a monumental, collective effort the system is recovering. The recovery will gather strength and pace with every day that passes, and I know that everyone in the House will support that work.
Mr Lammy
We all know the numbers. The backlog of criminal cases in the Crown court has grown to more than 54,000. Including the magistrates courts, it has reached more than 457,000 cases. Serious criminal cases are being delayed by up to four years. Convictions are at by far their lowest this decade. Estimates show that the current scale of increase in the backlog would take 10 years to clear at pre-pandemic rates.
Numbers do not tell the whole story. Behind criminal cases, there are victims: victims of rape, robbery, domestic abuse, and violent assault. Each of those victims is being denied the speedy justice that our society owes them. It has been repeated many times, but it is true: justice delayed is justice denied. This is not just the case because of the pain that delays cause victims and the wrongly accused—it is because delays to justice can affect the verdict.
On Tuesday, four criminal justice watchdogs for England and Wales warned of “grave concerns” about the impact of court backlogs. Victims and witnesses may avoid the justice system entirely because of the delays. Witnesses may be unable to recall events properly many years after the event. As a responsible Opposition, we accept that the pandemic has caused unprecedented challenges for the justice system. However, we do not accept the Government’s presentation of the backlog as a crisis that has resulted only from coronavirus. Before the pandemic, the Crown court backlog stood at 39,000 cases.
That figure was the result of sustained attacks on the justice system by successive Conservative Governments: an entire decade of court closures, cuts and reduced sitting days. Blackfriars Crown court was sold off by the Government in December 2019. It is now sitting empty, but it is being rented out as a film set by the developer for a new series of “Top Boy”. The Minister said “recovery”, but meanwhile the Government are paying through the nose for Nightingale courts a stone’s throw away.
Six hundred court staff, judges, lawyers and jurors have tested positive for covid-19 in the past seven weeks. A pilot scheme of lateral flow tests has now been authorised at only two courts in London and Manchester. A pilot scheme is not good enough, and neither is the plexiglass. Why have lateral flow tests not been implemented across the court system? The Minister knows that that is a serious problem and that we are a long way from recovery. Can he tell the House why the pitiful 19 Nightingale courts that he has managed to deliver fall so short of the 200 that Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service said were needed? Can he tell the House why lateral flow tests are not being trialled across the whole country? After 11 years of incompetence and cuts, will he admit that his Government failed to fix the roof while the sun was shining?
Chris Philp
The shadow Justice Secretary referred to the number of cases outstanding in the magistrates courts: 460,000. What he neglected to mention to the House was that, after the first lockdown, that peaked at 525,000 and has come down since then by 65,000 as the case load reduces relentlessly, month on month, and as our system recovers.
The right hon. Member mentioned waiting times. Of course we do not want to see very long waiting times, but I can tell him that the clear majority of remand cases that had their first hearing in November will have their trial by July of this year, and the clear majority of bail cases will have their trial heard by December of this year. He mentioned the report, which I have read carefully. Its authors, who do not inspect Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, did not engage with HMCTS prior to finalising it, which was regrettable.
The right hon. Member mentioned witnesses and victims, who are at the heart of everything that we do. Vulnerable witnesses, where it is appropriate, can give evidence under section 28 recorded well in advance of the trial, in order to avoid issues with forgetting particular evidence. I strongly encourage the CPS, defence, judges and other court users to use that section 28 facility.
The right hon. Member mentioned the number of cases outstanding in the Crown court. He claimed that before the pandemic the system was in bad shape. He mentioned the 39,000 Crown court cases outstanding in March of last year before the pandemic. What he forgot to mention was that when Labour left office in 2010 it was not 39,000; it was 47,000—considerably higher.
The right hon. Member talked about cuts. I anticipated that he might, so I looked up the HMCTS budget, which in 2011 was £1.65 billion. It has gone up by £200 million to £1.85 billion. He asked about the number of courtrooms and court centres. As I said, we now have 290 operational covid-safe Crown court jury trial rooms—significantly more than we had before covid. As I said in my first answer, in the magistrates court the outstanding case load has been declining relentlessly month on month, every month since August, and in the Crown court disposals exceeded receipts, so the lines crossed, for the first time in the full week before Christmas.
The right hon. Member asked about covid safety. Of course, Public Health England and Public Health Wales have signed off our courts as covid-safe. The number of HMCTS staff testing positive is in line with what we would expect in the general population; it is no higher, and no lower. Lateral flow testing is available at local authority lateral flow testing sites. We are exploring whether we can roll it out more fully.
Finally, the right hon. Member asked about the record of this Government on criminal justice. The most authoritative source of data is, of course, the crime survey. It is the only Office for National Statistics approved set of crime statistics. Crime in the last 10 years under this Government has fallen from 9.5 million offences down to about 5.6 million—a 41% reduction—according to the crime survey. Those numbers speak louder than words. Our record is a good one.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
The Minister is right to pay tribute to the work that is being done by all those in the system under very difficult circumstances. It is right, too, to recognise the investment that has been made to deal with this, but I am sure that he will also accept that for the backlog to be reduced to acceptable levels, disposals in the Crown court in particular will have to exceed receipts for a sustained period of time.
The Minister will also know that there are a number of serious organised crime cases with multiple defendants coming into the system, which will put in additional strains. Does he therefore agree that to make the system sustainable going forward we will need sustained and continued investment at higher levels than we have seen before for a number of years to come? Will he recognise that that is the case that all of us who care about the system, regardless of party, need to make to the Treasury and elsewhere?
Chris Philp
I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Justice Committee, for his question. He is of course right: we need to have sustained levels of disposals exceeding receipts. We got there just before Christmas for the first time during the pandemic following a heroic effort, but he is right that it needs to be sustained. We are making it clear that the resources needed to achieve that will be made available. In the current year, Crown court sitting days will not be any constraint on getting cases listed. Subject, obviously, to the usual discussions with the judiciary, we anticipate a very significant increase in Crown court sitting days in the next financial year to achieve the objective that he rightly and properly calls for.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) [V]
Criminal justice is devolved in Scotland, and here the focus has been on ensuring that jury trials continue in the most serious cases where accused persons are in custody and where the nature of the alleged offence demands that priority be given, which includes sexual offences. The report we are talking about today deals with England and Wales only. It has found numerous examples of serious cases being cancelled at short notice, and it has warned that delays could result in crime victims being unable to support prosecutions.
What new steps is the Minister taking to ensure that, as already happens in Scotland, the United Kingdom Government are complying with their duty under article 3 of the European convention on human rights to ensure that there are effective remedies for the victims of sexual offences and, in particular, that we avoid—or that he avoids—undue delay in getting cases of sexual offences to trial? I know what has been done in Scotland. I am keen to know what the Minister is going to do in England and Wales, given the finding of this report.
Chris Philp
We are as keen as the hon. and learned Member is and everyone is to make sure that these very sensitive cases involving rape or similar offences get heard quickly, but of course it is a matter for the judiciary to decide when they are listed and sometimes there are reasons to do with case management why a case may get adjourned while things are dealt with. But we have, for example, now rolled out the section 28 evidence provisions that I mentioned, so sensitive evidence can be given by recorded video, which can be taken well in advance of a trial—designed to help exactly what she is describing—and we have made large amounts of money available, with the extra £25 million next year and £32 million this year, to support and help witnesses and victims.
I was slightly concerned to read a remark by the Lord President in Scotland saying that during lockdown criminal cases in Scotland would be down by 75%. I am sure the hon. and learned Member shares my concern about that, and anything we can do to exchange ideas in our mutual interests I am sure we will be very happy to do.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) [V]
Around the world, the United Kingdom rightly has a reputation of having a first-class criminal justice system. The present large backlog in criminal trials due to the pandemic is of immense concern to me in terms of the rights of victims, witnesses and defendants and the need for a timely trial. Can my hon. Friend assure me that sufficient resources are going to be forthcoming to resolve the present backlog within a proper timeframe?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend is right to raise this question. As I said in my opening remarks, the pandemic—the global pandemic—has had a huge impact on public services not just in this country but across the world, and the court system is not immune from that. That is why we have seen the additional cases that we have discussed this afternoon.
My hon. Friend asked about resources. The Government are categorically committed to putting in the resources necessary to facilitate the recovery of the courts. I mentioned earlier that this year alone we have invested an extra £143 million in court buildings and technology to make our courts covid-safe and an extra £110 million in increasing our courts capacity. That is an investment of an extra quarter of a billion pounds this year alone to make sure that the court recovery not just gets started, but continues in the current vein. So I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that she is quite rightly asking for.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) [V]
There is more and more evidence that domestic abuse has increased dramatically during lockdown. The Bar Council has led calls for non-means-tested legal aid to be made available for all cases of domestic abuse. Will the Minister provide this as a matter of urgency, and commit to provide this as a matter of urgency, please?
Chris Philp
Domestic violence most certainly is a very serious and very important matter. That is why, when the pandemic started, the senior judiciary sent directions to magistrates courts laying out which cases should be dealt with as a matter of priority. One of the items in the top priority—the priority 1 list of cases—was domestic violence protection orders, because the judiciary and the system recognise their importance. In relation to legal aid, it is kept under review of course, but we are always making sure that domestic violence victims receive not just protection, but quick protection. That is vitally important.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con) [V]
All criminal cases begin in the magistrates courts and all magistrates are volunteers, so will my hon. Friend join me in thanking and congratulating magistrates on everything they are doing to clear the backlog in their courts? Will he assure me and all users of our magistrates courts that he will do whatever it takes to keep them safe and ensure that justice continues to be done in our local communities?
Chris Philp
I know my hon. Friend has a long and distinguished history serving on the bench as a magistrate, so I would like to publicly recognise that and I join him in extending my warm and enthusiastic thanks to magistrates up and down the country, who have been keeping justice going in incredibly difficult circumstances—and not just keeping justice going, but clearing down the backlog, which has been reducing since August, as I said earlier. One of my parliamentary team sits as a magistrate in Croydon Crown court—one of the many thousands of magistrates—and I thank all of them for what they have done to deliver justice in these most trying of times.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab) [V]
Rape and sexual violence prosecutions are at their lowest ever level in England and Wales, and domestic abuse prosecutions are down 19%, and that is at a time, during lockdown, when domestic abuse is widely reported to have increased, so what steps are the Government taking to speed up justice for vulnerable people who are victims of these abhorrent crimes?
Chris Philp
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is an issue with, for example, the charging and prosecution of rape cases in particular, which predates the pandemic. There is a problem and it needs to be addressed. Some steps have been taken already—for example, changes to the rules around disclosure, which had been a problem in rape cases, and the provision of significant extra money even before the pandemic to support independent sexual violence advisers and rape crisis centres and to support the victims of these awful crimes, but more needs to be done. The Ministry of Justice and the Home Office are conducting a rape review, which is being led by the Minister for Crime and Policing. That is due to report very shortly and will contain further actions in this very important area.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) [V]
I worked in the Courts Service for 20 years, and there have been case delays under all colours of Government, so the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) has a very selective memory on this issue. It is not surprising that this pandemic has caused delays in court cases right around the world, but will my hon. Friend the Minister ensure that delays to domestic violence cases are prioritised? As he knows, often pressure grows on victims as a case progresses and too often their resolve diminishes and they feel unable to continue supporting the case.
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. We are very concerned about these cases and that is why we are spending a great deal of extra money—as I say, next year, an additional £32 million—to help protect victims and witnesses of awful cases such as those of domestic violence and rape. As I have mentioned, the judiciary have already prioritised domestic violence protection orders in the magistrates courts and, although listing is a judicial function, I know that judges are prioritising very serious cases of rape and domestic violence to make sure those cases get heard quickly, for the reason that he has mentioned. In addition, we rolled out section 28, the video evidence provisions, in, I think, November last year—just a couple of months ago—to make sure vulnerable witnesses can give evidence by video quickly, well in advance of the substantive hearing, to make sure some of the issues to do with victim attrition that he mentioned are addressed quickly and as far as they possibly can be.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab) [V]
In 2016 the Government announced the closure of 127 courts and tribunals centres. Responding to a debate I secured at the time the Justice Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), acknowledged the importance of prompt investment in digital courts, saying:
“Otherwise, there will be an extraordinarily chaotic justice system, which is the last thing any of us want.”—[Official Report, 1 March 2016; Vol. 606, c. 258WH.]
Does the Minister accept that, notwithstanding coronavirus, the Government’s court closures, combined with a digital investment programme which only started after the closures, was scaled back and is running significantly behind schedule, represents a catastrophic failure to sustain access to justice?
Chris Philp
I do not accept the hon. Lady’s criticism. Travel times to courts before and after the programme that she mentions were very little different. As I said, due to the actions that we have taken during this pandemic, there are significantly more covid-safe Crown court jury trial rooms today than there were before the pandemic.
In relation to online justice, the cloud video platform was developed prior to coronavirus. Its roll-out has been expedited. In the weeks running up to Christmas we saw 20,000 remote hearings per week across all jurisdictions, and in fact last week was a record week. There are 150 magistrates courts and 70 Crown courts now connected. The use of remote video and audio hearing technology has been extremely widespread. It is very impressive, and it is doing its job extremely well in these difficult circumstances.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) [V]
I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the hard work that his Department has done during this incredibly difficult time, particularly with regard to the implementation of video hearings. Twenty thousand hearings have now been undertaken through the cloud video platform every month. Will he outline whether the use of remote technology will be expanded to help reduce court backlogs?
Chris Philp
I thank my hon. Friend, who of course has a distinguished background in this field himself, for his question. We do intend to continue rolling out the use of video and remote technology in the way that he describes. We see huge opportunities there. The Lord Chief Justice, in response to the most recent lockdown, urged trial judges and other judges to use remote hearing technology as widely as they possibly can, so this work is continuing. As I said in response to the last question, last week was a record week for remote hearings, and we expect the roll-out and the adoption of this technology to continue apace.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) [V]
The Minister points, as if it were an excuse, to previous backlogs of jury trials. The difference is that in 2010 and 2015, the previous peak, there were 600 to 700 trials happening a week and numbers were falling. Now he is boasting about 230 happening, despite his target back in November being 333. Does he accept that his proposals for clearing the Crown court backlog at the moment are not working and are inadequate?
Chris Philp
I would point out that 230 is the number happening as we speak; in the weeks leading up to Christmas, the average was more like 275. In relation to the number of trials over the last few years, as I said in answer to the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham, crime, as measured by the British crime survey, has fallen by 41% since Labour left office, so it is not entirely surprising that the number of trials has reduced commensurately.
However, we are now increasing the number of sitting days and the number of jury trials. As I said, the last full week before Christmas saw the number of Crown court disposals exceed the number of receipts for the first time in the pandemic. As the Justice Committee Chairman rightly said in his question, we now need to sustain that over a period of time to ensure that the outstanding case load gets back down to where it was before, which I remind the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) was a great deal lower than when Labour left office.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
I am grateful for the answers that my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) in relation to support for victims of domestic violence and other vulnerable witnesses. It is a tremendously tough time for everyone involved in the judicial system and on its periphery. I am thinking particularly of MK Act, the domestic violence charity in my constituency, and all the wonderful homelessness charities that we have to support vulnerable people. Sadly, however, those people do end up in the courts system, so what support do we have during the pandemic specifically for vulnerable people going through the courts system?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend raises an important point. Witnesses and victims, particularly in connection with offences such as domestic violence, sexual assault and rape, are very vulnerable and the experience is very traumatising. Often, going through a court process re-traumatises victims, who have often suffered terrible crimes. It is our duty as a justice system to support, protect and look after those victims as they go through the process.
We recognise that that needs investment, which is why we are spending an extra £25 million this year over and above previous plans, and an additional £32 million next year, specifically to support, protect and look after witnesses and victims. We are investing in things such as additional ISVAs, who can help support victims as they go through reliving awful crimes. I entirely concur with my hon. Friend’s sentiment, and we are doing everything possible, including putting in lots of extra money, to achieve the objectives that he points to.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) [V]
I listened very carefully to the response the Minister gave and this really is not a time for bragging. My very elderly constituent, whose case the Minister knows about through correspondence between us, has been waiting for four years to have a case of alleged fraud come to court. She and her family want justice to be done during her lifetime. That is what they are telling me. The system is clearly not working. It will not be fixed by bragging, but by investment, real reform and perhaps a little bit of ministerial humility.
Chris Philp
In relation to investment, I have already said two or three times that in this current financial year, because of the massive challenge posed by coronavirus, we have invested an extra £143 million and the extra £110 million—an extra quarter of a billion pounds—in delivering court recovery. A quarter of a billion pounds is an enormous investment. It is designed to help with cases like those of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, which we want to be heard quickly. Of course, every individual case has its own circumstances and sometimes there are procedural, evidential or other reasons why individual cases get listed some way into the future, but we do want all those cases to be heard as quickly as they can be. As I said, for remand cases where the defendant is in custody that had their first hearing—their first mention—in November 2020, the clear majority will have their trials heard by July this year. However, we do want to move faster. That is why, as the Chairman of the Select Committee said, we need to make sure that the happy circumstance of disposals exceeding receipts, which we achieved just before Christmas, is continued and sustained into the new year to help people like the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, who quite rightly and reasonably, want their cases heard.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con) [V]
I pay tribute to the work done by the Ministry of Justice in getting the courts open again quickly last year and actually increasing throughput so that we now have more sitting hours and more Crown court trials than we had before covid. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have the opportunity for a real transformation in criminal justice, making more use of technology in trials and in disposals? Can he update the House on plans for more smart tagging, as proposed in a recent Centre for Social Justice report by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler)?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend raises a very good point. As we face the future, the use of technology will be critical in making our justice system faster, more efficient and more accessible. I have already laid out how we have expedited the roll-out of a cloud video platform which facilitates remote hearings. We have been doing quite a lot of work with the police on video remand hearings, where a prisoner who has been arrested and is in a police custody suite has their remand hearing with the magistrates done by video link, rather than being taken to the magistrates court. Quite a lot of that has been going on. We are also just beginning to roll out the common platform, which is an IT system that integrates many parts of the criminal justice system, the Crown Prosecution Service, defence, prosecution and the courts themselves. That work is being trialled pending a full roll-out. My hon. Friend also mentioned a smart tagging, a point, as he said, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury. We have this year procured a large number of additional GPS tags, which we are now using. We are moving in that direction. The measures he referred to in the sentencing White Paper, which we published, I think, back in September, will, I can tell him, form part of legislation arising in the relatively near future.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) [V]
Many court users and their representatives are asking for courts to be closed again because of increasing covid outbreaks. Her Majesty’s chief inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service told the Justice Committee yesterday of concerns that some courts are not safe. He said, “I particularly would not wish to be in a court at this time.” Is the Minister planning for courts to close again? What impact will any such change in policy have on the Crown court backlogs that we are concerned about today?
Chris Philp
We are not planning to close down the court system, and the Lord Chief Justice made that very clear when the current lockdown was announced. As I have said, we have invested a quarter of a billion pounds in making our courts system covid-safe so that it can keep operating. The hon. Lady cited some remarks by the CPS inspector at the Committee yesterday and I have to tell her, in all candour, that those comments are inaccurate and inappropriate. The proper authorities for determining the safety of our courts system are Public Health England and Public Health Wales, not the inspector of the CPS, and they, having looked at the measures we are taking, have found them to be appropriate and found that our courts are covid-safe. The proof of that pudding is in the eating. As I said earlier, the number of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service staff who have tested positive for covid is in line with the number in the wider population; courts are not especially unsafe, because of the measures we have been taking and will continue to take. I hope that reassures witnesses, defendants, jurors, lawyers—anyone using the courts—that our courts are safe. Justice should, will and must continue to be delivered.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Northamptonshire police have made really good progress during the pandemic in targeting serious and hardened criminals and, in particular, in busting up local drugs gangs. Having arrested these people, the police need them prosecuted, so will the Minister tell me what the courts situation is in Northamptonshire and what progress is being made on reducing the backlog?
Chris Philp
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As I have said, we are opening up as many covid-safe jury courtrooms as we can, to hear the cases such as the ones he is describing. I would be happy to speak to him about opportunities to find additional court space in his fine county, perhaps by looking for some new Nightingale courts that we can use. There are particular challenges associated with so-called “multi-handers”, where there are a large number of defendants, because getting them into a single dock in a covid-safe way is challenging, particularly when there are more than seven defendants. We are looking at that carefully to see what more can be done. We recognise it is an area of particular challenge, but where there are fewer than seven defendants we are able relatively easily to hear those cases and we are doing so.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]
I have listened carefully to the Minister talk about covid-safe courts, but covid is spreading at an alarming rate and a growing number of legal professionals and organisations, including the Criminal Bar Association and the London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association, are stating that courts are not safe. HMCTS’s desire to address the case backlog should not compromise the health, safety and welfare of workers and court users. So can the Minister confirm reports by the Public and Commercial Services Union that on a single day last week 19 crisis management team meetings were needed to assist areas with multiple covid incidents?
Chris Philp
The measures taken to make sure our courts are covid-safe have been assessed and signed off by Public Health England and Public Health Wales, which are the appropriate authorities. We are very concerned to make sure that courts remain covid-safe, which is why as many hearings as possible are being done remotely, following a direction from the Lord Chief Justice a short while ago. It is also why we have social distancing in courts, why they are cleaned very frequently, and why we have plexiglass screens installed in courtrooms and in jury retiring and deliberation rooms. If any court user, be they barrister, solicitor, witness or anyone else, is concerned about any particular circumstances that they observe, there is a reporting process—an escalation process. I strongly urge anyone who sees anything amiss to use that reporting service. On the situation generally, I point to the figures I mentioned before, which show that the number of HMCTS staff testing covid positive is in line with what we would expect in the general community. But we are not complacent about this and we are going to work hard to continue to make sure that courts are safe.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con) [V]
Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking all the court staff, legal professionals and the judiciary, who have kept our justice system running throughout lockdown? Does he agree that the recruitment of an extra 1,600 court staff will help speed up our justice system’s recovery?
Chris Philp
Yes, I certainly will join my hon. Friend in thanking the judiciary, magistrates and everybody involved in delivering justice for their heroic, herculean efforts during this pandemic. In many countries around the world, justice has slowed or even stopped. Although we have many challenges, as we have discussed, we are doing a great deal better in this jurisdiction than many other countries around the world, thanks to the work of judges, magistrates, court staff, lawyers and everybody who makes the system operate. I extend my warm thanks to them. She is quite right that the 1,600 extra staff—getting on for a 10% increase—will make a big difference in delivering the court recovery we need and, importantly, in sustaining that into the months ahead.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab) [V]
Last September, I raised in the House the fact that the majority of Barnsley court cases have been moved to Sheffield courts. The measures the Minister claimed had been put in place have clearly not worked in reducing the backlog. I ask him again: what is his plan to make sure that everyone can access justice?
Chris Philp
We are putting more resources into the system, with more court rooms for jury trials, more magistrates courts sitting on Saturdays and no limitation this year on the number of Crown court sitting days. All those things are designed to make sure that we get through the work available and deliver swift justice. If there are any particular local issues affecting her and her constituents, I would be happy to correspond or meet to discuss them. The Government have an unshakeable commitment to making sure that justice is delivered right across the country.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement. However, this problem will outlive the pandemic. We need criminals to face the sentences they deserve as soon as possible. I have constituents in Redcar and Cleveland who have been waiting more than two and a half years for their day in court, and we all have victims who are waiting for justice to be done. It is great that we have established a Nightingale court in Middlesbrough to help with this, but what is the long-term strategy to cope with these delays, and how long can we expect the Nightingale courts to continue?
Chris Philp
I think the Nightingale courts will continue for as long as we need them. My hon. Friend makes a good point: at some point in the relatively near future, we hope that the current restrictions will be eased or even lifted, but that will not be the end of the story as far as the courts are concerned, because we will need to continue working, probably significantly beyond the end of the current coronavirus circumstances, to make sure that the court system is in the shape that we want. This journey will continue; it will not end suddenly in the coming months. We will make sure that the courts and sitting days needed are available so that justice is delivered. He mentioned making sure that criminals get the right sentences. He will have read the sentencing White Paper last September. We will shortly legislate in this area, and that legislation will include longer sentences—more time spent in prison—for the most serious criminals, which I am sure he and his constituents will strongly welcome.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) [V]
Can the Minister advise how many of the 400,000 lost police records are linked to these backlogged court cases? Will he take this opportunity to apologise to all victims who are being denied justice because of the Justice and Home Secretaries’ incompetence?
Chris Philp
My colleague the police Minister gave a full statement on the police records situation a day or two ago, and the Prime Minister answered questions on that topic from this very Dispatch Box just an hour or so ago, which I am sure the hon. Member listened to carefully. The Justice Secretary and Home Secretary and the Government will take no lessons from the Labour party on criminal justice when, according to the British crime survey, crime in the last 10 years under this Government has fallen 41% in comparison to our predecessor.
John Howell (Henley) (Con) [V]
The Minister is probably aware that the Lord Chief Justice recently set out in a very honest statement his view of the continuation of the rule of law by the sort of changes that he introduced. He also pointed to some of the difficulties. Will the Minister join me in congratulating and praising the Lord Chief Justice for all that he, specifically, has done in leading the judiciary forward in this difficult area?
Chris Philp
Yes. The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett of Maldon, has provided exemplary leadership through these difficult days, keeping our justice system running in a way that many other countries have not. I join my hon. Friend in extending my thanks and congratulations to the Lord Chief Justice, the senior judiciary and, indeed, the country’s entire judiciary for the work that they have done in delivering justice in these last nine or 10 months, and for the work that we are going to do together in the months ahead.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) [V]
Behind every alleged offence lies a victim, often many. I cannot imagine how hard it must be for them waiting month after month for justice. What is the Minister doing to reassure all those victims, who could be waiting up to four years for a trial, that justice will be done? After this statement finishes, what concrete action will he take to do something differently to address this?
Chris Philp
The lead times that the hon. Member is describing are, thankfully, very rare exceptions. As I said, for the most serious cases, where the defendant is remanded in custody, a clear majority of those that had a first hearing in November will have their substantive trial by July this year. We are taking action, we have been taking action, and we will continue to take action to look after victims of the most serious offences— the most distressing ones, such as rape and domestic violence—by making sure that they are supported. I have mentioned the £32 million of additional money that will be spent next year on the victim service, ISVAs and all those things that support victims and witnesses. I have also mentioned the use of section 28 evidence, which means they can give their evidence by video at a very early stage, rather than having to wait a long time. All those things are concrete, tangible actions that will help in the area that she raises today.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for his statement on recent progress in clearing the covid backlog. There will be victims out there who will look at these headlines and wonder whether they should pursue their cases, or perhaps recent victims of crime wondering whether they should come forward at all, given the delays that the papers have suggested. What is my hon. Friend’s message to victims of crime at this time?
Chris Philp
I say to victims: we are there to support you, to hear you and to seek justice for you. As my hon. Friend knows, we are hiring 20,000 extra police officers to keep victims safe. We are keeping the court system running in these difficult circumstances. We are getting back to a period in which magistrates courts are clearing the backlog and, I believe, the Crown court shortly will do so. So I say to victims: justice will be done. Your voice will be heard. Come forward. We are here for you. Do not hesitate—we want to hear your story. We will listen to it, we will act and we will make sure justice is done.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) [V]
Shockingly, only 1.4% of those reporting rape secure a conviction, and that figure was before the news of deleted police records and the covid court backlog. For the last 10 years, this Government have run down the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, courts, prisons and probation, so what confidence can the Minister give to victims and survivors of sexual violence that they will be able to secure justice?
Chris Philp
The Crown Prosecution Service, even before coronavirus, had an extra £85 million a year put into it to enable it to hire 400 more prosecutors. We are hiring an extra 20,000 police officers—we are about a third of the way through that programme already—and the Ministry of Justice had a significant funding increase for the current financial year, announced before coronavirus, running into several hundred million pounds. Those extra resources are being brought to bear, but the hon. Member is right to say, I am afraid, that there is a problem with the charging and prosecution of rape cases, which predates coronavirus. It is a very serious problem. We are taking action through the recruitment of more ISVAs and changes to disclosure rules, but that is not enough on its own. More needs to be done, and the rape review being led by my colleague the Minister for Crime and Policing, which is due to report very shortly, will propose further actions to address the problem that the hon. Member raises. It is a problem. It is not yet fixed. We need to take more action, and we will.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) [V]
As a former criminal defence solicitor, may I ask my hon. Friend to join me in praising all the practitioners who have contributed so much to access to justice during the pandemic? Many have asked me to ask the Minister what steps the Government have taken and are taking to enhance capacity in the criminal courts. Finally, does he not think it odd that the Scottish National party is asking questions about the English judicial system, despite its call for English questions on English laws?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. It should really be just one question to the Minister.
Chris Philp
I have such a choice to choose from! Yes, I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the legal profession and the judiciary for the work they have done in these difficult circumstances. To answer the question that his colleagues have put via him, we are opening up Nightingale courts. A total of 19 are open, with 36 additional courtrooms. We have already rolled out the cloud video platform to ensure that hearings can be done remotely, and we are ensuring that Crown court sitting days are not a limitation in this financial year, so we are doing everything we can to open up capacity in the criminal justice system. We are also considering whether we can extend operating hours, and I would be interested to hear my hon. Friend’s views on that, perhaps after today’s question. We are leaving no stone unturned to ensure that our capacity is increased.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]
North-west Wales’s only justice centre, in Caernarfon, is equipped with small cells, consultation rooms without protective screens, and insufficient space for jurors in one of its two Crown courts. There has recently been a sharp rise in covid cases in the area, and those conditions pose a significant risk to everyone attending court. The chronic underfunding of courts and the covid-induced backlog of cases are combining to create a crisis of justice. Will the Minister therefore commit to developing a recovery strategy for courts in Wales, once the vaccine has significantly reduced the risk to staff and users?
Chris Philp
Our recovery plans apply across the whole jurisdiction, but I would like to pay particular tribute to the court system in Wales. When we look at the figures for magistrates courts and Crown courts, we see that Wales is one of the parts of the jurisdiction that is doing either the best or very nearly the best. The courts in Wales are performing extremely well, and I would like to thank and pay tribute to the Welsh judiciary, HMCTS staff and the legal fraternity for the work they have done to make that possible. And yes, the recovery will continue beyond the immediate coronavirus pandemic. There will be work to do that goes on into the future, as the right hon. Lady says, and as the Justice Committee Chairman said. The work will continue across the entire jurisdiction.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) [V]
I join the Minister in paying tribute to magistrates in Cheshire and Merseyside for the work they are undertaking, and invite him to welcome the new volunteer members of the bench who were sworn in just before Christmas and are now serving in courts in the north-west. Having sat as a magistrate last week myself in Liverpool, I can confirm that the magistrates court and the Nightingale court at St George’s Hall are covid-safe and working very efficiently. Can my hon. Friend outline what steps are being taken to ensure that the most serious cases are heard quickly, both in magistrates courts and Crown courts, so that justice is not delayed?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before the Minister responds, let me say that I want to try to get everybody in, so we need fairly short questions and, obviously, fairly brisk answers.
Chris Philp
I will do my best, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am delighted to hear that the courts in Liverpool are functioning so well. The listing of cases is a matter for the judiciary, but I know that judges are mindful of the points that my hon. Friend raises, and where there are serious and sensitive cases, judges do prioritise those in listing.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD) [V]
I thank all those working in the justice system across the UK. As a former police officer with family who serve, I know the enormous efforts being made to keep the systems functioning. We clearly need more Nightingale courts and proper long-term investment to increase capacity. Can the Minister assure me, however, that the Government will not respond to this backlog by doing anything to either weaken or undermine the fundamental right to trial by jury?
Chris Philp
I thank the hon. Lady’s family for their service in the police force. We are, as a nation, grateful for everything they do on the frontline. It is not our intention to undermine those fundamental principles of justice, and even though we are in difficult circumstances, we have not cut corners with those fundamental rights to justice, nor do we plan to.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) [V]
What measures is my hon. Friend putting in place to secure access to justice, in particular in those cases where liberty is at stake, such as in the mental health tribunal?
Chris Philp
We are putting as many resources as we can into cases in the mental health tribunal, and we are using remote hearing technology as much as we can in tribunals generally, including the mental health one. My hon. Friend will have seen the recently published mental health White Paper, which aims to go even further in supporting the rights of people with mental health problems.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Is the Minister aware that many lawyers and people using the courts are absolutely terrified of going to work? These are not covid-safe environments. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on miscarriages of justice, I have talked to a lot of people working in our courts. He is being very complacent. Many people think that courts are the place to catch the covid infection. What is he going to do to show the leadership and management to sort that out?
Chris Philp
The Government have spent a quarter of a billion pounds this year on making our court estate covid-safe. Public Health England and Public Health Wales find it to be safe. I hope that it reassures the hon. Gentleman’s constituents to know that the number of positive cases in the court system detected among court staff is no different from what we find in the general population. The measures that have been taken are working, and people who need to use the justice system do not need to be afraid in the way he describes.
We are not complacent. We aim to do more, particularly in the area of testing. I urge people using the court system to take a lateral flow test, administered by a local authority testing centre, before going into court where they can, and if they see anything that concerns them, they should report it quickly, because there are reporting processes available. We are committed to making sure that courts are safe, and that work will continue.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Given that the Minister has previously expressed sympathy for the idea of raising the mandatory retirement age for magistrates in particular, may I appeal to him to ensure that when he does so, there is provision to reinstate those magistrates who have retired in the meantime, so that the valuable services of people like my constituent Peter Power JP are not lost to the bench?
Chris Philp
As my right hon. Friend knows, we ran a consultation in the autumn on this topic, and I hope we will be able to respond formally to that and move forward in the near future. His suggestion that recently retired magistrates who are under the new retirement age can return is a very good point well made, and I can assure him that it will definitely feature in our thinking when we respond to the consultation.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) [V]
Nottinghamshire police offered the empty Hucknall police training school to the Courts and Tribunals Service for use as a Nightingale court at zero cost months ago, but it has been rejected, and HMCTS is refusing to discuss alternatives with our chief constable and police and crime commissioner. Why has HMCTS not opened a Nightingale court in Nottinghamshire? Why was that free offer refused, and why is the Minister not working with Notts police to ensure that victims and witnesses are not denied justice?
Chris Philp
We have opened 36 Nightingale courts across the country. I am sorry that there is not one so far in the hon. Lady’s county, but I would be willing—delighted, in fact—to speak with her about her proposals for her county. If she would like to make contact, I will happily either exchange correspondence or have a meeting to discuss those ideas. There are sometimes reasons why a particular building is not suitable that are not immediately apparent—it might be to do with custody cells or something else—but I am happy to have a proper, detailed conversation with her about her ideas, to see what can be done. If she follows up with my office or my Department, I will be delighted to do that.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) [V]
Last year, the Ministry of Justice received calls to temporarily dispense with juries as a way of clearing the backlog in the criminal justice courts. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for his determination not to do this. However, will my hon. Friend reassure the House that as he works to accelerate the disposal of criminal matters, he remains committed to preserving juries as a fundamental cornerstone of the criminal justice system?
Chris Philp
Yes, we do remain committed to the foundation stones of our justice system. Just as we have not cut any corners in delivering justice in these difficult past few months, we do not plan to cut any corners in the future.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
The fact that we have had to open the Nightingale courts to increase capacity, welcome though that is, indicates how mistaken it was to close local courts in places like my constituency of Rochdale or in Bury and to concentrate all the magistrates courts in Manchester. Local justice is still a sensible idea. Will the Minister use this opportunity to think about a review of localism and the possibility of reopening local courts?
Chris Philp
Some local courts have been brought back into use in response to the pandemic. We have had to use Nightingale courts not because the current court estate is, in itself, inadequate, but because we need to space out a lot more to hold hearings and trials, especially jury trials, in a covid-safe way. Even where particular courts—the Old Bailey is a good example—have quite a large number of courtrooms, we can only use a subset of those in a covid-safe way. We have enough jury courtrooms, but they are sometimes difficult to use in a distanced, covid-safe way, and that is why we have had to open up the Nightingale courts. However, we will see what lessons we can learn, as the hon. Gentleman says. We will keep this under careful review and reflect on it very carefully.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) [V]
The Minister will understand the attention that has been paid to this issue, but I welcome the highlighting of the historical trends with regard to the hyperbole coming from the Opposition Benches. Does he agree that with many private events venues unable to operate and claiming taxpayer-funded grants and support, it makes sense for the taxpayer to be paying into those as Nightingale courts instead? May I encourage him to hasten the roll-out of such venues?
Chris Philp
I thank my hon. Friend for his encouragement. We will certainly do that everywhere that we possibly can. If any Members have ideas for Nightingale courts, then we are happy to talk about them.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Government like to talk tough on crime, but since 2010 the MOJ has been cut more than any other Department: police funding was cut, recorder sitting days were cut, the CPS was cut, and more than half the courts across England and Wales were closed. The new resources that the Minister has talked about will not make up for those 10 years of cuts. That is not being tough on crime, is it?
Chris Philp
I will tell the House what is being tough on crime. According to the crime survey for England and Wales—the only source of crime statistics that the Office for National Statistics says is reliable—the number of crimes in the jurisdiction of England and Wales has gone down by 41% since 2010, and that is the number that matters the most.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) [V]
I commend the Minister for the work he has done to get jury trials back up and running. I have a constituent who has been called for jury service and is quite worried about their own safety and the safety of those they live with. What information can my hon. Friend give about the steps he is taking to make jury service covid-safe so that my constituents can be reassured when they are undertaking this important public duty?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend can reassure her constituents who have been summoned for jury service that we have plexiglass screens in place to prevent the spread of any infection, distancing in the jury retiring rooms, regular cleaning, of course, and a whole range of further measures. If any of her constituents, or indeed anyone’s constituents, who are summoned for jury service are in some way vulnerable—perhaps over the age of 70 or feeling that their health might be compromised—they should contact the Jury Central Summoning Bureau to discuss that. Although there is no blanket rule in place, where somebody has legitimate concerns, they will be sympathetically listened to.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
The backlog of cases in the Crown courts is not only causing concern for victims of crime; the mishandling of the crisis has also piled pressure on to hard-working lawyers and barristers, who already work in high-intensity environments. The enforcement of the enhanced working hours by the Ministry of Justice means that legal professionals have had to work harder and longer hours. The Criminal Bar Association is now considering legal action to urge safer and fairer working conditions. If the Government recognise the value of those leading these trials, what is their response to the Criminal Bar Association?
Chris Philp
On the safe working environment, I have already mentioned that Public Health England and Public Health Wales, which are the relevant bodies, find our courts to be safe environments. But as I have said, if any legal practitioner or other court user comes across a particular circumstance that concerns them in a court, there are reporting mechanisms that I strongly encourage them to utilise if required.
In relation to hours, we are carefully considering the options; no decisions have been taken. But I would have thought that many people working in the legal profession would be glad to have additional working hours. Some practitioners say that they have not been earning as much as they ordinarily would because of the coronavirus restrictions, particularly over the summer. Clearly, additional hours provide an opportunity in that regard. But as I say, no decisions have been taken and we continue to think carefully and listen carefully to everybody with an interest in the system.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con) [V]
In Beaconsfield, constituents are keen to see that the wheels of justice keep turning. What investment have the Government made in reducing criminal court backlogs?
Chris Philp
I would point to the quarter of a billion pounds that we have invested this year alone—extra money for making sure that our courts are covid safe and have the capacity needed to deliver justice. That is a striking investment and a striking commitment—one that has not only started the court recovery, but one that I hope and expect will sustain it in the months ahead.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Minister for responding to the urgent question. I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Internet Access
Wednesday 20th January 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Internet Access Bill 2019-21 View all Internet Access Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the universal service obligation for internet providers to include mobile internet access; to make requirements regarding internet access for children eligible for free school meals; to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on progress in reducing digital inequalities; and for connected purposes.
Yesterday—although I had lost track of which day it was—I was talking to a broadcast journalist about this motion, and just as I was getting into the details of the wireless telegraphy regulations he said, “Darren, we cannot cover it tomorrow: we are doing back-to-back coverage of the presidential inauguration.” I understand that I am competing a little with the news cycle today, but I am grateful for the opportunity to plant this important flag in the sand and get this on the record.
This pandemic has highlighted many of the inequalities that have existed in our country for a long time. For children, many of whom have lost so much time at school, the long-term impact of the pandemic on their life chances could be severe. For families on low incomes, getting access to online schooling has been difficult; for many, buying new laptops and paying for high-speed broadband is just not a possibility. It is estimated that up to 2 million children in our country do not have the internet access that they need to learn from home. Although temporary solutions are welcome and important during the immediacy of the lockdown, mobile data uplifts and free access to certain educational websites will not provide the long-term solution that we need to tackle digital poverty in our country.
The Bill is not just about mobile data, wi-fi dongles or broadband policy; it is much more important than that. For many young people, education is the ticket to improving their lives. When I was at school, the internet was not as important as it is today, but getting the grades that I needed to get myself into university and to secure a career was the most important thing. I grew up knowing how difficult it could be for working parents who struggle to make ends meet. In the days before Labour introduced the national minimum wage, it was particularly hard, but the issues continue today.
I want the House and the Government to think about this motion in the context of families throughout the country—parents who desperately want to do the best for their kids, who simply cannot afford to buy a laptop or pay for broadband at home. Ofcom estimates that one in five families struggle to pay their monthly telecoms bill. Think of the young people who want to learn, work hard and do well at school because they know it is their only shot at a better life. Just think of them at home, unable to get online to learn, unsure about how they will be examined and anxious about how much they will have to catch up on. My ask of Ministers today is not just about broadband policy; it is about the hope that our children have for the possibilities of their tomorrow. We all have a duty to help them.
Dare I say it is easy for Opposition Members to stand up and point out the mistakes that Ministers have made and to suggest that the Government are not good enough—I often agree with that and no doubt will continue to do so myself—but today I am offering a solution that can work. The obvious long-term solution is to require a low-cost social tariff for broadband for families who need it. Ministers already have the power to do so in law: I draw colleagues’ attention to new section 72D in the Electronic Communications and Wireless Telegraphy (Amendment) (European Electronic Communications Code and EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which sets out the process through which the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport can direct the broadband regulator, Ofcom, to mandate internet providers to provide broadband at “a social tariff”—or, more meaningfully, at a price that the majority of families can afford and for which the lowest-income households are eligible.
Unusually, with this motion I am not asking for a new spending commitment from the Treasury. Ministers could, today, ask Ofcom to set up a social tariff for broadband without additional spending commitments on behalf of the state. Under my proposal, every household with children eligible for free school meals—1.4 million children throughout the country—could benefit. A social tariff that costs around £10 to £15 a month for broadband would make a huge difference.
As schools reopen for all our children, online learning will no doubt become a permanent feature, as schools provide additional online content for children to catch up on the schooling that they have missed during the pandemic. This is especially important for children from less advantaged backgrounds. The Sutton Trust’s polling from just this month found that only one in 20 schoolteachers from state schools believe that every member of their class had adequate internet access. Teachers are desperate to do all that they can to help their pupils, but on internet access at home they need us to help fix it.
I am sure that all of us have heard similar stories from our constituencies. At Blaise High School in my constituency, for example, 115 students have been identified as not accessing online learning and 89 students have been known to work from a mobile phone or a device shared with other family members. That is just one school. These are students who entered this crisis at an educational disadvantage, began the academic year even further behind, and now face the prospect of yet more months stuck at home, in which they will have to both keep pace with current work and begin the long process of catching up.
I am grateful to the Minister, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), for having taken the time to discuss my proposals with me. I have seen the Department’s official response today, which reads:
“We agree digital connectivity is vital. Large providers already offer social tariffs, and we have worked with them during the pandemic to make sure people have the connectivity they need. We welcome Ofcom encouraging other providers to introduce social tariffs and will monitor the situation closely.”
Those broadly welcome comments, albeit that the Opposition do not think that the Government have done enough on internet access during the pandemic, when translated from Whitehall speak, if I might be so bold, give the internet service companies and Ofcom the opportunity to fix this now, without the need for Ministers to intervene.
Ministers rightly refer to some low-cost tariffs that already exist from the likes of BT—I should declare my interest as a former lawyer at BT—but, having spoken with BT about my proposals, I think we can all agree that the existing products are not entirely fit for purpose, and eligibility for low-cost broadband is not broad enough to cover all the families that need it. In my view, we need a standardised social tariff option from all the internet service providers, with a sign-up process that is quick and easy for families with children on free school meals to sign up to. I will call internet service providers to a roundtable in the next few weeks to get that work started, and I look forward to working with them, but if the companies fail to step up to the challenge I will be back here pushing Ministers to use their statutory powers quickly to require a social tariff by law.
In addition to providing a low-cost social tariff for broadband, my Bill also asks for two additional things from Government. First, providers who want to offer free or zero-rated access educational platforms have raised the legitimate concern that lots of affected websites, such as YouTube or the BBC, are obviously not exclusively used for schoolwork. Ministers could make it easier to zero-rate access to educational content by asking the Government Digital Service to, for example, build a single gov.uk URL that brings together educational material on to a single website, which could then be easily accessed at no cost.
Secondly, the experience of the existing universal service obligation for broadband has demonstrated that cost is not the only barrier to productivity. For some families in hard-to-reach and rural communities, the basic infrastructure challenge remains significant, and has imposed a limit on the ambitions of the universal broadband obligation. In spite of real progress, last month’s “Connected Nations” report from Ofcom identified around 43,000 properties that still cannot feasibly access fixed broadband and currently lack good indoor 4G mobile connectivity.
Part of the solution is therefore likely to involve expanding mobile coverage. As we look to a post-crisis future in which we all remain more reliant on remote working and learning, it is reasonable to ask what a universal right to have a mobile 4G signal might look like. I know that Ministers have given some thought to that question because they made statutory provision to do so last year. This is merely a gentle nudge to push that important work forward.
Lastly, I thank the co-sponsors of the Bill, in whose number are three former Secretaries of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport—the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw)—as well as the Liberal Democrat, Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru spokespeople for education and DCMS policy, the hon. Members for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) and for Ceredigion (Ben Lake); my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), who is the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on digital skills; and my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who continues to campaign tirelessly on digital poverty.
Many colleagues in this House have raised the issue of digital poverty. The Bill commands cross-party support, including from the most senior levels, both inside this House and outside of it. Many are working hard to find solutions, but the proposals in my Bill provide an easy, long-term, cost-free solution to Ministers. Lastly, I ask them again not to see this as a proposal from an Opposition MP, or a niche request about broadband policy, but to recognise our collective responsibility in this House to help our children have hope about their future. We can and must get on with this now.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Darren Jones, Karen Bradley, Jeremy Wright, Mr Ben Bradshaw, Daisy Cooper, Jamie Stone, Carol Monaghan, Ben Lake, Julie Elliott and Siobhain McDonagh present the Bill.
Darren Jones accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 241).
National Security and Investment Bill
Wednesday 20th January 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate National Security and Investment Bill 2019-21 View all National Security and Investment Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 20 January 2021 - (large version) - (20 Jan 2021)
17:10 - The House divided: - Ayes: 269 / Noes: 351 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:21 - The House divided: - Ayes: 263 / Noes: 355 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:33 - The House divided: - Ayes: 265 / Noes: 355 - Question accordingly negatived.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) [V]
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Report on impact on Small to Medium Enterprises—
‘Not later than 18 months after the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament—
(a) a report setting out the impacts the Act has had on Small to Medium Enterprises and early-stage ventures, and
(b) guidance for Small to Medium Enterprises and early-stage ventures on complying with the provisions of this Act.’
This new clause would require the Government to produce a report setting out the impacts of this legislation on Small to Medium Enterprises and early-stage ventures, and to produce relevant guidance.
New clause 3—Grace period for Small and Medium Enterprises—
‘For the purposes of section 32, a person has a reasonable excuse if—
(a) the entity concerned is a Small to Medium Enterprise;
(b) this Act has been in force for less than six months.’
This new clause creates a grace period whereby – for alleged offences committed under Section 32 – Small to Medium Enterprises would have a ‘reasonable excuse’ if the alleged offence was committed within the first six months after the Bill’s passage.
New clause 4—Framework for understanding national security—
‘When assessing a risk to national security for the purposes of this Act, the Secretary of State must have regard to factors including, but not restricted to—
(a) the potential impact of the trigger event on the UK’s defence capabilities and interests;
(b) whether the trigger event risks enabling a hostile actor to—
(i) gain control or significant influence of a part of a critical supply chain, critical national infrastructure, or natural resource;
(ii) conduct espionage via or exert undue leverage over the target entity;
(iii) obtain access to sensitive sites or to corrupt processes or systems;
(c) the characteristics of the acquirer, including whether it is effectively directly or indirectly under the control, or subject to the direction, of a foreign government;
(d) whether the trigger event adversely impacts the UK’s capability and capacity to maintain security of supply or strategic capability in sectors critical to the UK’s economy or creates a situation of significant economic dependency;
(e) the potential impact of the trigger event on the transfer of sensitive data, technology or potentially sensitive intellectual property in strategically important sectors, outside of the UK;
(f) the potential impact of the trigger event on the UK’s international interests and obligations, including compliance with UK legislation on modern slavery and compliance with the UN Genocide Convention;
(g) the potential of the trigger event to involve or facilitate significant illicit or subversive activities, including terrorism, organised crime, money laundering and tax evasion; and
(h) whether the trigger event may adversely impact the safety and security of UK citizens or the UK.’
The new clause provides a non-exclusive framework of factors which the Secretary of State is obliged to have regard to when assessing a risk to national security.
New clause 5—National Security Definition—
‘When assessing a risk to national security for the purposes of this Act, the Secretary of State must have regard to factors including, but not restricted to—
(a) the potential impact of the trigger event on the UK’s defence capabilities and interests;
(b) whether the trigger event risks enabling a hostile actor to—
(i) gain control or significant influence of a critical supply chain, critical national infrastructure, or natural resource;
(ii) conduct espionage or exert undue leverage over the target entity;
(iii) obtain access to sensitive sites; or
(iv) to corrupt processes or systems.
(c) the characteristics of the acquirer, including whether it is effectively directly or indirectly under the control, or subject to the direction, of a foreign government;
(d) whether the trigger event adversely impacts the UK’s capability and capacity to maintain security of supply or strategic capability in sectors critical to the UK’s economy or creates a situation of significant economic dependency;
(e) the potential impact of the trigger event on the transfer of sensitive data, technology or potentially sensitive intellectual property in strategically important sectors, outside of the UK;
(f) the potential impact of the trigger event on the UK’s international interests and obligations, including compliance with UK legislation on modern slavery and compliance with the UN Genocide Convention;
(g) the potential of the trigger event to involve or facilitate significant illicit or subversive activities, including terrorism, organised crime, money laundering and tax evasion; and
(h) whether the trigger event may adversely impact the safety and security of UK citizens or the UK.’
This new clause establishes factors which the Secretary of State must have regard to when assessing a risk to national security.
New clause 6—Dedicated Small to Medium Enterprise support—
‘(1) Within 3 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent the Secretary of State must set up, a specific division focused on engagement with Small to Medium enterprises (SMEs) engaged in any provisions of this Act.
(2) The division must focus on four functions—
(a) providing updated, efficient and accessible guidance specific to SMEs on compliance with the terms of this Act;
(b) engaging with SMEs in advance of formal notification that can allow efficient notice and assessment periods, including through use of regulatory sandboxes where beneficial for innovation and national security;
(c) providing regular engagement with and assistance to SMEs throughout the assessment periods for SMEs;
(d) seeking to deliver prompt, proportionate resolution of complaints by SMEs relating to the provisions of this Bill;
(e) monitor the impact on access to investment for SMEs and report to the Secretary of State.’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set up a Small to Medium Enterprise (SME) engagement unit to assist and support SMEs through the national security screening process.
New clause 7—Reports to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must, in relation to each relevant period—
(a) prepare a report in accordance with this section, and
(b) provide a copy of it to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament as soon as is practicable after the end of that period.
(2) Each report must provide, in respect of mandatory and voluntary notifications, call-in notices, and final orders made under this Act, details of—
(a) the jurisdiction of the acquirer and its incorporation;
(b) the number of state-owned entities and details of states of such entities;
(c) the nature of national security risks posed in transactions for which there were final orders;
(d) details of particular technological or sectoral expertise that were being targeted; and
(e) any other information the Secretary of State may deem instructive on the nature of national security threats uncovered through review undertaken under this Act.’
This new clause would require the Government to publish an ‘Annual Security Report’ to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.
Amendment 3, in clause 3, page 3, line 10, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
‘(4) The Secretary of State must review a statement published under this section within one year after the publication of the first such statement, and thereafter at least once every 5 years.’
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review the statement about exercise of call-in power to be reviewed one year after they are made, and once every five years thereafter.
Amendment 1, in clause 6, page 5, line 3, at end insert—
‘(10) Notifiable acquisition regulations must be reviewed one year after they are made, and once every five years thereafter.’
This amendment would require notifiable acquisition regulations (including which sectors are covered) to be reviewed one year after they are made, and once every five years thereafter.
Amendment 6, page 5, line 3, at end insert—
‘(10) Notifiable acquisition regulations must bring broadcast, print and social media companies within the scope of the mandatory notification regime.’
Amendment 2, in clause 8, page 6, line 38, at end insert—
‘(8A) The fifth case is where a person becomes a major debt holder and therefore gains influence over the entity’s operation and policy decisions.
(8B) For the purposes of subsection (8A), a major debt holder is a person who holds at least 25% of the entity’s total debt.
(8C) The sixth case is where a person becomes a supplier to the entity of goods, services, infrastructure or resources to such an extent that the withholding of the supply would seriously undermine the entity’s ability to continue its operations.’
This amendment would mean that a person becoming a major debt holder or a major supplier would count as a person gaining control of a qualifying entity.
Amendment 4, in clause 30, page 20, line 3, after ‘period’ insert ‘or any calendar year’
This amendment would make it mandatory for the Government to inform Parliament if financial assistance given in any financial year, or in any calendar year, exceeds £100 million.
Amendment 5, in clause 54, page 33, line 42, at end insert—
‘(aa) whether the law of the country or territory to whose authority the disclosure would be made contains provisions and prohibit any use or disclosure of the information contrary to subsection (4),
(ab) whether the Secretary of State considers that disclosing the information to that authority would in itself pose a threat to national security, and’
This amendment would add to the list of factors the Secretary of State takes into consideration a sub-clause to ensure that a country or territory making a disclosure request has sufficient safeguarding in place to prevent any action that would be considered unlawful in the UK.
Amendment 7, in clause 61, page 36, line 20, at end insert—
‘(m) the average number of days taken to assess a trigger event called in under the Act;
(n) the average number of days taken for acceptance decisions in respect of mandatory and voluntary notices;
(o) the average staff resource allocated to the operation of reviews of notices made under sections 14 and 18 over the relevant period;
(p) the number and proportion of notices and call-in notices concerning the acquisition of a Small to Medium Enterprise; and
(q) in respect of the transactions stated subsection (p), the sectors of the economy in relation to which call-in notices were given.’
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to report on the time taken to process notices, the resource allocated to the new Unit and the extent to which Small to Medium Enterprises are being called-in under the new regime.
Stewart Hosie
The new clause is in my name and the names of my hon. Friends, as are new clauses 2 and 3 and amendments 1 to 6.
On Second Reading of this Bill, I described how it was designed to bring additional scrutiny of foreign investment that may have an impact on national security. I agreed that not only was there nothing wrong with having a national security eye on investments in critical areas, but it was in fact absolutely vital. During that debate, the House appeared to acknowledge the concern about the national security implication from investments that are shared globally and that a number of other countries had been tightening up their investment security regimes in response to changing national security-related threats to enabling technology, to intellectual property and so on. The debate also saw descriptions of the tightening of these regulations in Japan, Canada, Sweden, Germany and elsewhere. There was little disagreement on the Government’s proposals where, if the trigger and threshold were both met, an individual investment could be called in by the Secretary of State for approval, the powers could be retrospective, and an investment could be called in after it had occurred. There was some concern about the time to conduct the national security assessments—30 days with potentially an extra 45, which might actually be deemed a little short and it still prompts the question of whether 75 days was actually sufficient. There was, however, broad agreement about the mandatory notification process where investment interests in certain sectors and asset types must be pre-emptively or retrospectively declared. There were real concerns that this may lead to a very large number of notifications from businesses erring on the side of caution.
The Bill also introduced new powers to increase screening in respect of health and preventing hostile acquisition through strategic buying of health supplies, and I welcome that, with the warning that the scope of activities that may be caught is very wide. That is because the statement of policy intent, which describes the core areas as including such things as advanced technology, is perfectly reasonable, but it also contains a much wider definition of national infrastructure.
That debate did focus on the impact assessment for the Bill, which estimated that the new regime would result in somewhere between 1,000 and 1,800 transactions being notified each year—a very high number given that only 12 transactions were reviewed on national security grounds since the current regime was introduced 17 years ago. It does also remain the case that we still need to carefully assess the impact of the Bill—the impact that it will have on sectors and on infrastructure not just in the UK as a whole, but in the devolved nations and in the English regions. On Second Reading, I asked the Minister to take a little time to convince himself that there were no unintended consequences either for the UK or, indeed, for the Scottish Government’s inward investment plans when Government agencies of all sorts are actively seeking investment in some areas, which may be deemed to be critical national infrastructure. That is an issue that I do hope he will still address today. How do we ensure collectively that this Bill does not impede growth or investment in such areas.
The key concern I had was about implementation. The Bill is set to radically overhaul the UK’s approach to foreign investment at a time of significant economic uncertainty. On leaving the EU, the UK Government cannot afford to get their global Britain approach wrong and suffer what has been described as the potentially chilling effect on investment if the measures in the Bill appear to be heavy-handed. That is a concern across the board, given that even microbusinesses are in scope.
I take this brief opportunity to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) and for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), who served on the Bill Committee. They raised a large number of concerns, including the impact on academic research spin-offs, SMEs and early-stage ventures. They called for a grace period for SMEs falling foul of this new legislation, a review of exercisable call-ins and a review of the notifiable acquisition regulations. They suggested that broadcast, print and social media companies should be in scope. They suggested that major debt holders should be defined as a person gaining control of a qualifying asset and they suggested a requirement to report if financial compensation from Government exceeded £100 million in either a calendar or financial year.
All those amendments and contributions were made for very good reasons. The Scottish National party has long argued that it is right to have this legislation and for it to be made. In some ways it is long overdue, but that does not mean there are no concerns, which is why we have tabled new clauses 1 to 3 and amendments 1 to 6.
New clause 1 would require the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the Bill on academic research spin-off enterprises. New clause 2 would require the Government to produce a report setting out the impacts of the legislation on small and medium enterprises and on early-stage ventures and to produce relevant guidance. New clause 3 would create a grace period whereby for alleged offences committed under clause 32, SMEs would have a reasonable excuse if the alleged offence was committed within the first six months of the Bill being in operation.
I will turn briefly to the amendments. Amendment 1 would require notifiable acquisition regulations, including the sectors to be covered, to be reviewed one year after they are made and five years thereafter. Amendment 2 would mean that a person becoming a major debt holder or a major supplier would count as a person gaining control of a qualifying asset. Amendment 3 would require the Secretary of State to review statements about the exercise of call-in power one year after they are made, and once every five years thereafter. Amendment 4 would make it mandatory for the Government to inform Parliament if financial assistance given in any financial or calendar year exceeded £100 million. Amendment 5 would add to the list of factors the Secretary of State has to take into account. They would have to ensure that a country or territory making a disclosure request had sufficient safeguarding in place to prevent any action that would be considered unlawful in the UK. Amendment 6 would ensure that notifiable acquisition regulations bring broadcast, print and social media companies into the scope of the mandatory notification regime.
All those new clauses and amendments in essence are designed to ensure that the scope of the legislation is appropriate, but that the impact, particularly on investment, is proportionate. I have not determined yet whether to press any of them to a vote. What I would prefer is for the Minister to give a commitment, not simply to have infrequent if regular reviews of parts of this Bill, but to keep the Bill under permanent review to ensure that the scope remains valid—not too wide and not too narrow—and that the impact on investment and risk, particularly in small and medium-sized enterprises, academia and research, is proportionate. Through that, we can ensure that we quite rightly protect national security, but do not suffer from the investment chill that some fear could be the consequence if we get this wrong. With those brief remarks, I commend the new clauses and amendments to the House.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
On Second Reading both of this Bill and of the Telecommunications (Security) Bill, it was mentioned that in 2013, the Intelligence and Security Committee first recommended measures to prevent high-risk vendors such as Huawei from penetrating our critical national infrastructure in future. It is always the way: you wait seven years for a Bill to protect against infiltration and takeover, then two come along together.
Given that background, the ISC naturally welcomed the introduction of this legislation, and we greatly appreciated the contact that we have had with the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi). Not only did he keep his promise to write to us about the points made by Committee members on Second Reading, during my period of self-isolation, but he dealt with ISC concerns at the Committee stage and reached out before today’s debates as well. That is precisely the type of constructive engagement that we should like to have with the Government. If I do not secure the concessions that I want after all of that, I shall be very disappointed!
The issue on which I shall focus is parliamentary oversight. Normally, that would be straightforward. As the future arrangements laid down by the Bill will depend on the input of the new investment security unit, and as that unit will be housed in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, one would normally expect that general scrutiny could be conducted by Parliament as a whole and specialised scrutiny by the Select Committee on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Unfortunately, that does not work in this case: much of the work of the investment security unit will depend on input from intelligence and security agencies and similar sensitive sources that cannot and must not be made public.
Furthermore, on Second Reading, the then Business Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), made crystal clear how central secret material would be to the practical application of the provisions of this legislation. He stated that
“the whole point of the Bill is for it to be narrow on national security grounds”.
He also said:
“These powers are narrowly defined and will be exclusively used on national security grounds. The Government will not be able to use these powers to intervene in business transactions for broader economic or public interest reasons”.—[Official Report, 1 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 206-210.]
It follows that the very areas in which the BEIS Committee would be perfectly qualified to scrutinise policy are specifically excluded from the application of the powers conferred by the National Security and Investment Bill.
That scrutiny gap was addressed, also on Second Reading, by the shadow Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), who said:
“Given the sensitive nature of the issues involved in this Bill, I do think there needs to be a way…for this House to monitor how this is working in practice.
I do not speak for it, but we have a special Committee of the House—the Intelligence and Security Committee—that can look at these issues. I would like to raise the question with the Secretary of State whether it could play a role in scrutinising the working of the regime and some of the decisions being made, because there are real restrictions on the kind of transparency there can be on these issues…The ISC is in a sense purpose-built for some of these issues.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 214.]
It is hard to disagree with that, although I hasten to add that the Committee has not the slightest wish gratuitously to add to its workload, overburdened as we are due to our delayed reconstitution and the fact that we cannot operate virtually, where sensitive material is concerned, during periods of lockdown. Nevertheless, Parliament should be enabled to scrutinise the implementation of the powers given to Government by this legislation, which explicitly puts national security material at the heart of future decision making. It is obvious that there will be potential conflicts between encouraging business on the one hand and safeguarding national security on the other. In 1994, the ISC was established specifically for circumstances such as these—namely, to examine matters that Parliament could not because they were too sensitive for public disclosure and debate.
It has been suggested that the ISC cannot undertake this role this time because the organisation concerned, the new investment and security unit, is based in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, rather than Departments like the Home Office or the Cabinet Office, which traditionally handle national security matters. Yet this is fundamentally to misunderstand the legal basis under which the ISC functions.
There are two interlinked documents: the Justice and Security Act 2013 and the memorandum of understanding between the Prime Minister and the ISC for which that Act provides. The long title of the JSA makes it quite clear that it provides not only for scrutiny of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, but for
“oversight of…other activities relating to intelligence or security matters…and for connected purposes.”
Section 2(1) of the Act refers to those three intelligence agencies specifically, but section 2(2) spells out our Committee’s wider remit:
“The ISC may examine or otherwise oversee such other activities of Her Majesty’s Government in relation to intelligence or security matters as are set out in a memorandum of understanding.”
Section 2(5) explains that that MOU can be altered by agreement between the ISC and the Prime Minister. All that is required, therefore, for a Government activity in relation to intelligence or security matters to be added to the existing list in the memorandum of understanding is a simple exchange of letters between the ISC and the Prime Minister agreeing to do so.
In other words, the 2013 Act and associated memorandum were designed exactly for circumstances such as these, where evolving intelligence and security arrangements create sensitive new functions and/or new units which need Parliamentary scrutiny to be within the same circle of secrecy as the long-established Agencies. To put the matter beyond all doubt, consider finally this extract from paragraph 8 of the MOU about our remit:
“The ISC is the only committee of Parliament that has regular access to protectively marked information that is sensitive for national security reasons: this means that only the ISC is in a position to scrutinise effectively the work of the Agencies and of those parts of departments whose work is directly concerned with intelligence and security matters.”
Inserted at the end of this sentence is a notation for the following footnote which explains:
“This will not affect the wider scrutiny of departments such as the Home Office, FCO and MOD by other parliamentary committees. The ISC will aim to avoid any unnecessary duplication with the work of those Committees.”
Indeed, having chaired the Commons Defence Committee in the previous two Parliaments, I can confirm there was never the slightest friction, overlap or intrusion from the then ISC into the work of the Defence Committee. The ISC looked at defence intelligence and offensive cyber, as set out in its MOU, and the Defence Committee continued to scrutinise everything else.
It really should not be necessary, every time a new unit is set up inside a Department not normally associated with national security or intelligence issues, to spell out in black and white, as I have done today, how and why the framers of the 2013 Act deliberately created the flexible memorandum of understanding arrangement that incorporated its role on the face of that legislation. It was, of course, to deal with exactly the sort of situation facing us today, where the intelligence and security battle in what is increasingly known as the grey zone of conflict mutates and moves into areas of responsibility far beyond traditional boundaries, as Deborah Haynes’ admirable new podcast illustrates so convincingly. That is why Business Ministers, rather than Defence or Security Ministers, are having to grapple with today’s legislation.
Following a constructive discussion with my hon. Friend the Minister yesterday, I was cautiously optimistic that the Government would recognise that the 2013 arrangements provide the correct basis for scrutiny on which to proceed. Of the 14 amendments tabled for today, there is one—new clause 7—that recognises the scrutiny gap in this legislation and proposes that a special report containing the relevant classified national security material should be prepared for, and provided to, the Intelligence and Security Committee. This Opposition amendment has much to commend it, and, as ISC Chairman, I would be minded to support it if it were the only available option. However, an undertaking by the Minister today that the Government will bring forward their own amendment in the upper House to close the scrutiny gap satisfactorily in a more streamlined way would be even better.
In his appearance before the Public Bill Committee, former chief of MI6 Sir Richard Dearlove had the following exchange with the Minister, who referred to the annual report to be prepared for Parliament as a requirement of this legislation. The Minister asked:
“What is your view on balancing transparency and ensuring Government can take national security decisions sensitively? Where does that balance lie in terms of our ability to be as transparent as we can without harming sensitivities around these decisions?”
Sir Richard replied:
“My view would be that the annual report has as much transparency as possible, but you are probably going to require a secret annexe from time to time.”––[Official Report, National Security and Investment Public Bill Committee, 24 November 2020; c. 21.]
Whether we go down that route of a classified unpublished annexe to send to our Committee or follow the model used in the ISC’s own reports, which are prepared in full with subsequent redactions made and marked in the main body of the text, such an approach would be the least burdensome for the Department to prepare and for the ISC to scrutinise. Either method would effectively close the scrutiny gap and get this valuable and necessary legislation off to the best possible start.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure, as always, to follow the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), and I support many of his remarks.
Let me start by saying that the Opposition’s approach to this Bill is one of constructive support. That should not surprise the Minister: already at Committee stage we tabled nearly 30 targeted amendments and half a dozen new clauses to strengthen protections of our national security, although, regrettably, the Minister did not choose to accept any of them. As the Minister is also responsible for vaccine roll-out, he may have been distracted. I want to thank everybody—all the members of the Committee and the House staff involved in the Committee stage of the Bill—and confirm that we intend to continue that constructive support.
We support the Bill, because it is a Bill demanded by Labour. The problems it tackles are ones that have been highlighted by Labour, and the Government’s action, only after years of delay, seems to be a result of being constantly reminded by Labour. Reminded this Government have been, not least by their failures again and again. They were reminded in 2012, when they let the Centre for Integrated Photonics, a prize British research and development centre, be taken over by Huawei, an event that our recent head of the National Cyber Security Centre said we would not want to happen with hindsight: national security outsourced and British interests relinquished to the market.
The Government were reminded again in 2014 when they let our foremost artificial intelligence firm, DeepMind, be acquired prematurely by Google: national security interests outsourced again on account of blind market faith. They were reminded twice this time when the Government let our world-leading semiconductor firm Arm be taken over first by SoftBank and now by Nvidia. Again, an intelligence expert told our Committee that the UK had limited freedom of choice in this key strategic technology and that the deal undermined our own ability: our national interest outsourced yet again by Ministers prioritising market zeal over British security.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
First, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), who has spoken very kindly about the work of the Committee that I am privileged to chair. I also pay huge tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi). He has been tireless—that word has been overused in this place, but he has been tireless—in reaching out to all Members to speak to them about the Bill and ensure that the amendments tabled are helpful and conducive to not only the public good but the national good. He has been doing that at the same time as he has been running a vaccination programme. I have to say that the Minister’s wife’s loss is the nation’s gain: she has been selfless in allowing him to slave away for our country on two very important subjects.
The reality is that this is a hugely important Bill, and because it is so important and such a big change for the United Kingdom, it raises huge questions that are very difficult to answer. The way that the Minister has approached this is exactly right. He started off by speaking to businesses, to our intelligence services and to our regulators to understand what exactly the threat is, how it is affecting our businesses and how it can be addressed. He has had, I hope, as much help as he possibly can from them, and I hope that the help being offered from the Select Committee that I am privileged to chair and the Committee that my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) is privileged to chair is helpful.
We are trying to improve what is already a good Bill and make it into an excellent one. We have had various conversations with not only the Minister but his Whips, who have been extremely helpful—I know that this is a very odd thing to say in the House—in ensuring that he is informed about the way in which we have conducted this discussion. It would not be right for me not to also thank Alice Lynch of our Committee and Nicole Kar of Linklaters, our specialist witness who has helped us through the process of writing this report.
I rise to speak to new clause 4, which is in my name and the names of fellow members of the Foreign Affairs Committee. We looked carefully at the Bill because, over the last two to three years that I have been chairing the Foreign Affairs Committee, much of our work has been on the threat of foreign interference in the UK. One of our earlier reports in May 2018 was entitled “Moscow’s Gold: Russian Corruption in the UK”; I believe the Minister was still on the Committee when we started that report, though he had already been promoted to greater things by the time we published it. The report touched on the way that dirty money plays into our systems and the way in which we must protect those systems.
Since then, we have looked at various aspects of how our foreign policy is fundamentally about keeping the British people safe. We have always focused on the interests of the UK and the interests of the people we are lucky enough to represent. We sit here representing our communities—not other communities, not business and not anybody else, but our communities and what is fundamentally in their interests. We built up, from that early report, into looking at the various ways in which money has moved around, influencing academic freedoms and changing the way in which businesses have acted. As the Minister knows, we have called out those who we feel needed to be called out. That is why I am so pleased that he is in his place and has produced this Bill, because it finally sets a process by which this Government—any Government—can look at decisions that are being taken and assess them properly.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his Committee on the excellent report they have produced, but this is about the scrutiny of decisions of mainly private companies and others. Does he share my concerns about some decisions taken by Departments, particularly in the light of the Ministry of Defence’s decision to buy E-7 Wedgetail aircraft from Boeing, which results in two of them coming from China?
Tom Tugendhat
The right hon. Gentleman tempts me, but I am not going to get drawn on the Wedgetail discussion, as that is a slightly separate conversation. He is right to say that this Bill affects not just private business, but the way in which the Government will also conduct their procurement, so it is absolutely right that in future decisions may be looked at in different ways. This Bill, however, is slightly different, because it looks at the purchase of British business and not at the UK purchasing others.
Let me come back to where I was before the right hon. Gentleman cunningly got in his complaint about an MOD decision. This Bill goes a long way to making sure that we are in the right place, but it raises a few concerns, which I will touch on. That is why we have introduced new clause 4, which is not supposed to be a definition of national security, because that would, as the Minister knows, constrain the ability of a Government to adapt this law as national security changes. It would in effect tie concepts from 2021 into the law as it progressed. Given the change we have seen in the past 10 or 15 years, that would frankly be unwise. After all, who could have known that some of the decisions we have taken, perfectly innocently and rationally, over the past decade are some of the worst that a Government have made?
I am referring to two decisions. First, the sale of DeepMind to Google was one of the worst strategic moves a UK Government have taken. I am not blaming anybody for it; it was a decision taken rationally at the time, without understanding the future power of artificial intelligence and the extraordinary strength of DeepMind. That is a huge credit to the team at DeepMind and to much of the investment Google has put in, but it is also a recognition that a change of ownership and geographic basing—even though the people do not change, the ownership changes—has undermined the UK. The second is the sale of Arm to SoftBank. Again, this is one friendly company being sold to a company of another friendly nation. These are not geographically specific points; they are entirely geographically neutral. My guess is that one of Arm’s products is in everybody’s pocket, because they are in 95% of computer products and so will be in almost everybody’s phone. This is one of those moments where we risked losing control of an absolutely fundamental technology that could in future promote Britain’s interests greatly. That moves us into a question about Nvidia that I will not get drawn into now; I am just putting into historical context decisions we made that we will live to regret.
This Bill allows us to look at those things and update with the times, which is why I agree that we should not have a fixed definition of national security—we should have a framework for it. Here I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) and others on the Committee, who came up with this proposal and were extremely rigorous in doing so. I pay particular tribute to Nicole Kar of Linklaters, who helped us with the drafting of it and to the Committee Clerks who got us through it. There is a real opportunity here to enable this framework to defend us.
Governments throughout the European Union and, indeed, around the world have already started to look at how their laws that are similar to ours will apply. If we do not give enough strength to our Government, there is a danger that we will be the only ones found to be naked when the day comes and the choices have to be made. That would be a huge mistake, because the world is changing; there is a lot more cash from state-owned enterprises going around than there has been for many years. Sadly, there is likely to be a prolonged period of economic difficulty as we come out of covid; those companies and countries that are willing to underwrite companies will have an advantage when they start to snap up businesses around the world. That is why we need this legislation now.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) [V]
It is always a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who is doing sterling work in an area of increasing concern to this House and our country; the impact of hostile state actors plays an increasingly important part in how we think about our country’s place in the world. He is doing outstanding work in thought leadership and political leadership in that context.
It was a privilege to serve on the Bill Committee, and it has been a real privilege to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), who has led the team in an exemplary manner. She has been assiduous in the scrutiny of the Bill and in bringing us together around the amendments—more than 30 of them, I think—that we tabled in Committee.
Unfortunately, while I have huge respect for the Minister in charge of the Bill, he chose not to integrate any of our amendments into the Bill, which is a pity because, as my hon. Friend just pointed out from the Dispatch Box, we have approached the Bill in a spirit of constructive engagement with the Government. We wish to see its substance put in place as rapidly as possible; it is long overdue. It is a pity that that spirit was not reciprocated by the Government when it came to some of our amendments, which we genuinely tabled not for any partisan reasons, but to try to improve the Bill as much as we could.
However, we are where we are. We are through Committee, and we are looking at the Bill as it is. As has been mentioned, we heard from experts in Committee, including the former head of MI6, Richard Dearlove, and Charlie Parton, one of the leading experts on China, and their contributions were enlightening. It is worth touching on what they talked to us about, because it sets out the backdrop against which the Bill is being put on to the statute book.
I will mention two of the key takeaways from that evidence. First, the impact of covid on the ability of the British economy and businesses to withstand a hostile foreign takeover is deeply troubling; it increases their vulnerability. It feels very much like we are out on choppy waters in a relatively difficult economic climate, and are relatively isolated, of course, having left the European Union. We need to ensure that we do all we can to hold on to our strategic national assets. We should not allow them to be snapped up by investment vehicles and businesses that are sniffing around, to use the term of the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), our business sector, potentially taking over businesses in a way that would be deeply damaging to our economy and national security.
The second key trend that was highlighted was, of course, the rise of China. It was made very clear by Mr Dearlove, Mr Parton and others that successive Governments since 2010 have been profoundly naive and complacent about how we respond to the rise of China. We had the so-called golden era, which was supposed to be about economic integration, and supposed to lead to China beginning to align with the rules and norms of the international rules-based order. Clearly, the opposite has happened, and as a result of that naivety and complacency, we find ourselves very exposed, and in a position that could lead to the undermining of our sovereign capabilities. The Bill is being introduced against that backdrop.
I will speak in favour of new clause 5, which is really important, and on which I worked with colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, but first I will talk about the Bill’s intentions, and whether it will achieve its goals. The Bill seeks to protect Britain’s national security from the threats posed by hostile business takeovers, and by investment vehicles that are not aligned with the UK’s values and interests, and are potentially even actively hostile and seeking to cause harm to our country. However, there is potentially a flaw at the heart of the Bill. A key part of our national security is our economic security; indeed, I would argue that it is a foundation stone of our national security. It underpins our long-term national security, in the sense that if we lose control of key parts of our economy, it leads to an undermining of our sovereignty, our sovereign capability, and our prosperity. That has a knock-on effect on our resilience and our national security.
We need to put our sovereign capabilities at the heart of the Bill, and ensure that when the Government do national security assessments, they look at long-term, strategic, structural threats in addition to the more immediate threats to our national security of espionage, intellectual property theft, and a range of others.
That is why in Committee I honed in on two issues that I felt were most critical: our critical national infrastructure, and enterprises and investment vehicles that have clear links and allegiance to other states. On the first point, the Bill unfortunately neglects to define critical national infrastructure. The Government consultation lists 17 sectors that might come under the national security regime’s mandatory notification process, but it does not list and define critical national infrastructure as an asset class in itself.
There is a difference between the list of 17 sectors in the Bill and the 13 sectors that the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, which is of course a Government body, defines as critical national infrastructure. The missing five sectors are chemicals, defence, finance, health and water, which I would argue are crucial to our national interest. Potentially hostile foreign takeovers in those crucial sectors should give all of us, and certainly the Government, pause for thought. Those sectors form the basis of the safety and security of every citizen of our country, so I strongly recommend that critical national infrastructure be defined as an asset class in the Bill, and that the gap be closed between those 13 sectors and the 17 listed in the Bill.
Our critical national infrastructure of course needs protecting. Sir Richard Dearlove, in response to my question in Committee about including a defintion of critical national infrastructure, said:
“I would certainly see that as advantageous, because it defines a clear area where you start and from which you can make judgments”.––[Official Report, National Security and Investment Public Bill Committee, Tuesday 24 November 2020; c. 24, Q31.]
The truth is that we have failed to protect these critical national assets for a decade. Just look at the involvement of Chinese-based investment vehicles in our water, energy and nuclear sectors. This is a serious problem that needs to be fixed urgently. It is also part of the laissez-faire approach that successive Governments have taken since 2010. It leads to a short-term business culture that opens the door to acquisitions, and to our having by far the highest number of successful hostile takeover bids of any advanced economy in the world—certainly as defined by the OECD.
Our strategic assets have too often been flogged off to the highest bidder. The case of Arm—a jewel in the crown of British tech—has been mentioned by several hon. Members; it is, of course, in the process of being sold off to NVIDIA. Huawei acquired the Centre for Integrated Photonics and of course DeepMind was sold to Google; I absolutely agree with the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who said that that was one of the most egregious decisions taken by a Government in recent political history.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Could I interrupt the hon. Gentleman to say that we have quite a few more speakers? We do have a fair amount of time, but I am hoping that speakers will take about 10 minutes, and he has now taken 15, so I hope that he might be bringing his remarks to a close before too long.
Stephen Kinnock
With apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am indeed finishing now.
Protecting our national security is just one element of protecting, nurturing and developing the sectors that are vital for the future. Technology sovereignty will be the defining issue of the coming decade. The economic dislocation we have seen from covid means that the case for action is stronger and more urgent than ever.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
I shall heed your remarks, Madam Deputy Speaker, and try to keep my contribution short. In truth, I have not been involved thus far in this Bill, but I am my party’s defence spokesman and I therefore take a view on it.
Given the constituency I represent at the very top of the British mainland—north coast, east coast and west coast—I intuit from what I see that the Russian navy is no stranger to those waters. Therefore, the defence of the realm is in my mind personally as well as in speaking in the Commons. As I have said many times before, we do, alas and alack, live in a world where there are states that are not about the best interests of the United Kingdom. As other speakers have said, we see the Chinese threat and we see the Russian threat. It is within that context that I say what I say.
I want to make three or four very general points; as I say, I will try to be fairly speedy. The first is about the amendment that seeks to place an annual security report before the Intelligence and Security Committee. Yes, we have heard that the Government are proposing to bring in something similar to this amendment in the upper House, but it would be no bad thing for us to agree on it at this stage, and then let us see what the Government come back with if they decide not to accept it. In recent days, we have seen on the other side of the Atlantic the whole notion of parliamentary democracy come under some challenge. Here in the mother of Parliaments, the idea of Parliament as supreme and of reports brought back to Parliament is very much a part of our democracy. It is a vital mechanism in securing the way we do things nationally and our freedoms.
On the Chinese point, the sale of DeepMind to Google, and Arm, which will go to NVIDIA in due course, is regrettable, to say the least. Let us make no mistake: this is a quite deliberate act by China and other Governments who are hostile to us. At the end of the day, there are front organisations that are trying to get a grip on cherry-picking those parts of the British economy that are fundamental to our workings. That is extremely dangerous, to say the least.
The scope of the public interest test is important to the Liberal Democrats, as we have been saying for a long time. First and foremost, this Bill, which I support entirely, is important to the safety of the realm—to protecting British interests—but at some stage I would like the public interest test to be broadened out. Mention has been made of China. We know how incredibly badly the Chinese are treating their Muslim minority in the west of the country. It amounts to something approaching genocide: let us not muck about with this. When companies buy up a British company or business, I would like the public interest test to be applied, for instance, on child labour and on modern slavery. The trade deals should be examined in that context as well. At the end of the day—we have said it many times in the House of Commons and the House of Lords—we disapprove entirely of the way in which the Chinese have treated the Uyghurs. We have to try to take action to try to influence that. If we can stymie a trade deal on that front, that might be a very good move for the future.
I have discovered—it is a curious factor during my three years in the Commons—that on defence matters there is often broad agreement across the House, which is very encouraging. The idea of constructive opposition is important, and what comes back from the upper House will be of extraordinary interest. I hope that the lesson has been learned, and that when the Bill is enacted there will be a sensible approach to stopping the repetition of DeepMind and the sale of Arm. I give huge credit to the Chairmen of the Foreign Affairs Committee and of the Intelligence and Security Committee, who have worked assiduously, as have their Committees, on a cross-party basis, to protect the best interests of our nation. There I shall conclude my remarks.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
I join the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) in paying tribute to all the members of the Bill Committee. The room may have been cold but, to be fair, the debate was not. I extend my thanks not only to the Front-Bench spokespeople but to all the Clerks and everyone who made that happen.
What occurred to me as I shivered, with the Thames windows open in the Committee room, was that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) pointed out, this is flipping important, but there is a risk of it becoming dry and remote. I hope that the House will bear with me if I try to bring it to life for people who spend the day on their phone and are not aware of some of the business takeovers that have occurred or of the actions of foreign states that are hostile to us.
I want specifically to speak to new clause 5 and the attempt to seek clarification on the definition of national security. In the spirit of clarity, let me take a step back to take a step forward. What does the Bill do? It enables us to catch up with nations such as America, Australia and Canada, in protecting us from threats from people overseas who try to use business and ideas, candidly, to do us harm. It gives us a legislative framework to address that, and I echo the comments of many Members to put stickers on how important that is.
The Bill gives the Government powers to investigate properly business deals that look a bit fishy or are much worse than that. National security can sometimes end up sounding like that bit in “Men in Black” where, all of a sudden, the sunglasses go on and the pen comes out. What does it mean? To me, it is not a static thing or concept—it is a fast-changing world. In seeking to define it, as new clause 5 does, we risk flagging to our enemies what the “it” of national security is, thus making a big pointy arrow saying, “Go and over there and do this, because we are not thinking about that as a Government at the moment.” The Government need flexibility to be nimble as threats evolve.
To explain that, let me give a hypothetical example. A small firm is curating a TikTok feed and videos on its channel, gaining ad revenue. It is not a huge business—a couple of people—but it is doing quite well. Those videos are funny and political, and are often further left of centre than me. They imply that I, as a Conservative, have only awful motivations for the decisions that I make in this House. Well, such is life. This is the lot that I picked, though, as an aside to the youth of today, I would like to point out that if they are getting their messages from people who are only giving them one side of the story, they should think about it quite hard, because there are always two sides to the story.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I supported the Bill on Second Reading and continue to do so, because, of course, in terms of putting on the statute book the protection that we need, it is a vital piece of legislation, but, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said, it is possibly some seven years late. That highlights the conflict that takes place within not just this Government, but all Governments, between wanting national prosperity and national security. We had this during the coalition Government—the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), I think, referred to it as the “golden age”, or, as the Australians would call it “a Government full of panda huggers”—but that has clearly changed. What has also changed since even 2013 is that we have a better understanding of how states are using their economic power not only for defence purposes, but to project their power to change the international world order.
It has come as a great shock to many people that, in the past few years, the international rules-based order, which we have all accepted since the second world war, has come under threat not only from hostile states, but from individuals who basically want to throw everything up in the air and see what lands.
Clearly, when it comes to China, to mention one nation, its investment strategy, including belt and road and other initiatives, is clearly being used not just in terms of projecting its economic power, but for geopolitical reasons. If we look at the long list of Chinese individuals on various standard-raising bodies—whether it be UN bodies or standard setters in the telecoms industry—we can see which areas they want to influence. The Bill is very important in ensuring that we protect that critical national infrastructure. There will be that debate—as Members will see if they read the ISC’s report, in 2013—between prosperity and security. For me, security has got to be the key cornerstone of this legislation, but it will, I think, lead to some very difficult decisions having to be taken.
As I say, I broadly welcome what is being put forward in this Bill, and I will come on to some of the new clauses in a minute, but can I first refer to new clause 7? It has already been spoken to by the Chair of the ISC, the right hon. Member for New Forest East, in terms of oversight. The ISC is not looking for work, I can tell hon. Members that. I have been a member of it for a few years now, and we have a lot on our plate. We do not actually want to be a regulator or in any way to have to decide what should go ahead and what should not—that is the role of Government—but I think it is crucial that those decisions, some of which will be very controversial but taken for perfectly good security reasons, do need to have oversight from outside the Executive.
As the right hon. Gentleman has outlined, that cannot be done by the BEIS Committee. Again, I would not want to take away from any of the work it is doing, but we are the only Committee of all the Committees we have that has the levels of security clearance—it has STRAP clearance—to look at the evidence that will have to be put forward for taking these decisions. I think this would give the public confidence in the Bill, and when such decisions are being taken in future, the public can actually have confidence that there is some oversight of the reasons why they are being taken. So I do support new clause 7, but I accept what my Chairman says about wanting some indication of the Government wishing to take this on board. May I also raise the fact that this is not just for this Bill? I am also serving currently on the Telecommunications (Security) Bill Committee, and it is an issue—exactly the same issue—there as well.
I think the Minister is sympathetic to this, but I can tell him now—and I do not want him to admit it—that he will be getting a lot of pushback from the Cabinet Office, because the Cabinet Office somehow sees it as its role to prevent the ISC from seeing anything. As the right hon. Member for New Forest East said, it hides behind the Justice and Security Act 2013, but as he very eloquently outlined, there is already a mechanism to allow us to look at this. This is going to be an increasing problem. If hon. Members read the Act, they will see that it does not actually say that it is about actual Departments; it is about access to sensitive and secure information. That is going to be an increasing issue, whether for this Government or future Governments, because, as that is used by more Departments, it is important that Parliament and the public at least have some oversight of it.
I do not want to bash the Cabinet Office, but hon. Members will remember, if they look at the 2013 ISC report, that it is the same Department that, even though it was told by BT that BT was going to contract with Huawei, somehow conveniently forgot even to tell Ministers until much later. So, I think it is important to ensure that we have robust oversight. I look forward to the Minister’s response on whether he is going to agree to this letter. If he can give such an indication today, or even when it goes to the other place, that would be welcome, and if that is the case, I think it would be quite right not to press new clause 7. I think this is something that is missing from the Bill.
May I now refer to other new clauses? New clause 4 stands in the name of the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling and others, and I congratulate his Committee on its report. I accept what the hon. Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) has just said about defining national security. Putting that on the face of the Bill, as new clause 5 does, limits what can be done, although it is good to have a debate on this. New clause 4 is slightly different, however, because it sets out a framework within which these decisions can be taken.
The Bill does not define national security or the list, and I understand why: because we cannot list the entities, and, as the hon. Lady said, something might come up in the future that is critical national infrastructure but that we have not yet thought about. We need sufficient flexibility to be able to address such situations.
New clause 4 also covers the following important area:
“(g) the potential of the trigger event to involve or facilitate significant illicit or subversive activities, including terrorism, organised crime, money laundering and tax evasion; and
(h) whether the trigger event may adversely impact the safety and security of UK citizens or the UK.”
We see good examples of states that are making strategic investments for geopolitical or security reasons or in order to acquire technologies, but, as came out in the ISC Russia report, many states are increasingly using fronts and other individuals to acquire such assets, and, having not an exhaustive list, but a framework that covers this would also flag up such matters to the Department.
We talk about critical national infrastructure being things such as power stations, electricity grids, gas mains and telecoms, but might we also say that our food distribution network, for instance, is a part of critical national infrastructure? In the early 2000s we had the fuel delivery lorry drivers’ strike, which led to a critical situation, and control of such events could fall under this. These things might be done not by a state, but by individuals related to it, perhaps acquiring large property portfolios in certain areas. Although new clause 4 is not perfect, it covers these matters.
I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) is trying to achieve in amendment 7. She wants this unit to have the resources to ensure that it can do its job, and that is very important. However, we also need to ensure that there are no untimely delays, because we do not want this to be a hindrance to business.
Amendment 7 also raises the issue of the personnel who are going to perform this task. I have a huge concern, which I have raised already in terms of the Telecommunications (Security) Bill, about the type of individuals we are going to get in that unit. It is vital that we have people with not only the necessary security clearances but also the right security mindset. Some reassurance on that from the Minister would be welcome.
Overall, however, I welcome this Bill. It takes a huge step in the right direction. As my Chairman, the right hon. Member for New Forest East said, it is strange that we wait for seven years and then get two Bills very quickly, and I also look forward—I hope in the near future—to a further Bill, the hostile state actors Bill, which is another recommendation from our Russia report.
I thank the Minister for the constructive way he has taken this Bill forward—and I will be cheeky and just say to him that if he can deliver extra vaccines in Chester-le-Street this week, that will be very welcome.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We now go over to Sam Tarry—oh no, he’s here!
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
I am indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker; I hope you are not too confused that I am here physically. Thank you very much for kicking me off.
I spoke at length on this legislation in Committee, where I moved a number of Opposition amendments to try to strengthen it and where we heard salient and wide-ranging witness statements and testimony on this crucial legislation. Indeed, as many Members across the House have said, the Bill is an important and, frankly, long overdue piece of legislation that will provide more robust powers for the Government to intervene when corporate transactions threaten national security, as the Labour party has long demanded. That is why we support the Bill and have tabled amendments to make it more robust.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) [V]
May I first take the opportunity today to congratulate our friends in the United States? They are one of our longest and most enduring partners, including in the domain of investment, where we are each one of the largest investors in each other’s economy. In fact, 1 million people in the UK go to work every day for an American company, and 1 million Americans work for British companies.
Unlike many of the other speakers in this debate, I want to talk about investment. This Bill should not be about the NHS or employment law or foreign policy, but it is—or at least it should be—about the world-liberating, poverty-alleviating force that is the global movement of capital to make a profitable return. We are all deeply vested in its continued success. The UK economy is one of the most open in the world, and our prosperity depends on that. The salaries and pensions of one in every three nurses, doctors and teachers depend on the cyclotron of capitalism that combines our world-leading science and intellectual capital with human talent from all over the world to invest in and create economic activity here in the UK. So I am pleased that the Minister, who I know is a great friend of business, has once again confirmed that the Government will always enthusiastically champion free trade and provide the warmest of welcomes to overseas investors. He is right to remind us that, since 2011, over 600,000 new jobs have been created in our economy, thanks to over 16,000 foreign direct investment projects.
In putting forward new clause 5, Opposition Members put forward a veritable laundry list of subjective factors that are at odds with the clarity and certainty that investors need from this Bill. They would put the UK into a concrete overcoat at just the moment of our greatest opportunity. From the buoyant top, we would plummet to the depths of the world rankings in attracting international investment. It is almost as if Opposition Members do not want the British people to taste the fruits of the successful Brexit that they tried to thwart.
From an external perspective, the British economy is a highly attractive investment prospect: a stable, pro-free enterprise democracy with tariff-free access to European markets, close links to the faster-growing Commonwealth countries and native use of English, the universal language used by the fastest-growing sectors and economies of the world. The opportunity is the stability of Switzerland, combined with the dynamism of Singapore.
As net zero champion, I see examples daily of entrepreneurs and investors pursuing opportunities in the expanding clean growth sector. British-based firms are exporting electrolysers to Europe and fuel cells to Asia. The City of London is a world-leading hub for green finance, while our airports and airlines are the same in sustainable aviation. Elsewhere, similar opportunities exist in artificial intelligence, quantum computing, the life sciences, satellites, aerospace and FinTech, where the UK science and research base positions us very strongly. It is not just rhetoric; economists rightly forecast that UK growth this year will outstrip the US, Japan and the EU.
I urge Opposition Members to withdraw their amendments to the Bill and to allow it to go forward today. Having allowed the golden goose of the UK economy to continue to prosper, we can engage in a legitimate debate about how best all may share in the fruits of that success. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We cannot have Members sitting here in the Chamber—under the cover of masks, so I cannot see their mouths moving—making comments about things that people are saying virtually. It just does not work and, quite frankly, it is not fair. We really must watch the level of behaviour while we are trying to balance this difficult situation in the Chamber.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to speak this afternoon. I have followed with great interest every stage of the Bill. I do so with a somewhat vested interest. That is not that I have investment portfolios or similar, because I do not, but because I am fully aware of the potential that exists within Northern Ireland for foreign investment from the positive advantage we now have.
As the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), said, Brexit has given us some opportunities for investment for the future. I see potential for that, as he does, and hopefully as others do, too. Northern Ireland has become the cyber capital of Europe, with our low business rates, superfast broadband in urban areas, wonderful global connectivity—before the pandemic, at least—and a highly skilled local workforce. It is little wonder that more people have decided to make Northern Ireland the home of their global business, and the opportunity is there for much more.
For that reason, I have followed the Bill closely to ensure that it protects our nation as a priority, and I am firmly behind the Government in that aim. I support the objectives that others have set out, and that the Secretary of State will set out at the end of today’s debate. I also want to ensure that the Bill is not overly prohibitive to companies that see opportunity to invest in my constituency of Strangford and in the Ards council area, but have concerns about the mechanism through which the Secretary of State can put a hold on investment for certain reasons.
I share the concerns of my colleagues that more detail is needed on what constitutes a reason for the Secretary of State to become involved. It is my desire that, rather than a substantive statement by the Secretary of State coming after the passing of the Bill, one should be appended to it. I seek some clarification on this matter. That would enable investors and those businesses seeking investment to know the parameters within which they are working.
I must be clear: I do not wish to water down the aims of the Bill—that is not my intention whatsoever. However, I share the concern of some Members that Chinese companies are under an obligation to share information with the Chinese Government. I remain concerned about overly onerous legislative commitments for small investments and small firms, but I must accept the evidence of the loopholes that foreign investment companies have made their way through by purchasing intellectual property rights and the like. I see how our system has been abused thus far, and I stand with Government on the need for an overhaul, which is the purpose of this legislation. However, I believe that we need the detail to have the strong and all-encompassing legislation required to keep our nation safe. I again implore Ministers to consider this. The safety of the nation has been spoken about by many Members, and it is certainly a priority for me and my party.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his work and for being here for the debate; I know how busy he is, so I am most grateful. I will speak to new clause 4, which provides a definition of “national security”. After listening to some of the speeches, I wonder whether I am going to play the role of General Melchett in “Blackadder” when I insist that “security” is not a dirty word. Let me try to put the argument in favour of a national security definition. My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) suggested that I do so, and I am grateful to him for the opportunity. Like him, I thank Nicole Kar and Alice Lynch, who supported the work of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
New clause 4 provides a non-exclusive framework of factors that the Secretary of State would be obliged to regard when he is assessing takeovers or work in this field. It does not limit the Secretary of State in any way, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher), who spoke eloquently, and others suggested. It provides a public recognition and a public baseline of things that should be considered. As such, it is a sensible amendment to improve the Bill, as well as providing a wider public service by defining national security in the modern era. I would like to make a few background points and then speak for between five and 10 minutes on a few other points.
We need a definition of national security, because the alternative is to have a vague and unstated set of assumptions. The amendment is broad, but it sets quite a high benchmark. It is not a generalised catch-all, nor does it contain a substitute for an industrial policy; that is another debate. The Cadbury takeover would not be included in this, nor would a Stilton creamery in South Notts—it might in France, but not in this country.
In this country we have a tendency to romanticise vagueness, as if planning were a bad thing and muddling through a strategic art as well as a national pastime, with this just-in-time Dunkirk spirit. I think it was Churchill who noted that, actually, Dunkirk was a military disaster, not a victory, and that if we had got our security and strategy right in the years previously, we could have avoided glorifying disasters because we would not have been in that disastrous position in the first place. A more systematic approach to national strategy—frankly, I think we need a national strategy council—but also to security and the definition of national security is important.
My next point is that the nature of national security has changed, and we need to be mindful of that. It is not simply about defence and espionage and the immediate threat to the realm. We have seen from Russia and China a combining of non-military and military, of covert and overt strategies—people call it hybrid war, grey war, under-the-radar war; there are about 25 definitions doing the rounds. This is not a war as such, but it is a form of state struggle and state conflict. Some states in the world, including very significant states such as Russia and, perhaps to a lesser extent, China, see things as a zero-sum game. We need to understand that liberal internationalism is not the only show in town and not the only way to understand international affairs. The west is good at many things, but seeing the world through the eyes of others is not necessarily one of them.
These new states, as many people here have said, use multiple and novel tools, including economic power, energy power, espionage, blackmail, information war and even cultural and religious power, as well as military and paramilitary power, and they use different templates and different tools in different parts of the world. Clearly, the tools that China uses in Xinjiang province are different from the ones that it uses in the City of London or to reach out to parliamentarians. The tools that Russia uses in eastern Ukraine or Kiev are different from the ones that it uses in the UK. Is the Kremlin’s use of Russian Orthodoxy a national security threat to us? No, of course not. But is its use of oligarchs and informal channels to influence senior political and financial elites in our country—the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) called it “elite capture”—a potential threat to national security? Yes.
The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) was right to mention how states are using those new powers and how they use power to bend or break the international system. My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling has also spoken about that repeatedly, as indeed have many of us on the Foreign Affairs Committee. That international system is not perfect, but it has served humanity well.
It is important to understand that national security is not just about a narrow defence threat; it is broader. China has published a document, “Made in China 2025”, outlining how it plans to dominate data, artificial intelligence, big data and so on. Is it a threat to our communications infrastructure if we are dominated by a one-party state with a very different values system? I am not saying definitely, but potentially it would be.
The Henry Jackson Society and I produced a report on Five Eyes supply chain reliance on China. Over a quarter of British supply chains are dominated by China, and the UK is strategically dependent on China for 229 categories of goods, 51 of which have potential applications in critical national infrastructure spheres. We need to be mindful of the impact of that on our national security.
There are companies that are going to be bought and universities that are going to be working on gait technology and facial technology. I do not doubt that there are some countries in the world that will use that technology to improve their mass transport systems, but there are countries—China is potentially one of them—that will use it as a means of controlling their people more effectively and developing the sort of Orwellian state that is a potential threat to humanity and mankind.
Let me look specifically at new clause 4. As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble talked about the need to be nimble, and she is exactly right, but osmosis is not a way to provide a definition of national security. The new clause obliges the Government to look at a series of areas. We tried to make it broad, but it sets a high bar. It requires the Government to look at the critical supply chain, critical national infrastructure and national resource. A year ago, who would have argued that personal protective equipment manufacture, vaccine supply or AstraZeneca’s cyber-security were national security issues? Probably nobody. Who now would deny it? Probably nobody. This is a significant element of our national security.
Another example—one that has worried me greatly—is that the Government did not see Huawei’s domination of 5G as a national security issue. They chose not to listen to those people in the agencies who said that it was and set a clear political direction. It concerned me particularly that, bizarrely, BEIS and other Ministries presented Huawei in this House as a private firm when, clearly, it was part and parcel of the Chinese state. Therefore, having a clear definition in the Bill of what Ministers are obliged to look at would help to guide them to come to good decisions in the national interest, and that is what we are trying to do.
We are trying to do things in the national interest to improve the Bill where we can. Paragraphs (b) and (c) address the threat from individuals and to individuals. Paragraph (c) addresses the nature of potential acquirers of UK firms. The hon. Members for Aberavon and for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) spoke very eloquently about this, and Huawei is instructive.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling spoke about two companies that were bought when perhaps they should not have been, and we need to look at the nature of potential acquirers of UK firms. It is not an attack on laissez-faire economics or on our role as a free market and dynamic, global economic centre to accept that a national security definition, along with good laws, helps to provide a framework for honesty and integrity in business life. Paragraph (f) addresses national security and our responsibility to oppose modern slavery and genocide, which is an important issue for me, but again it sets an extraordinarily high bar.
Paragraph (g) addresses the potential threat of global organised crime. Again Russia, specifically, has tried to influence other countries in this way. Yes, that could be a potential national security risk. Finally, paragraph (h) gives the Secretary of State the flexibility to take a generalised approach to things that are not in the interests of the UK and are a threat to our interests or our citizens.
This new clause is a baseline, not a limiting factor. It helps to provide guidance for the Secretary of State and for BEIS. Frankly, this should be cross-departmental. We need our own CFIUS, and why we do not have one I do not know. Again, that is a concern. I will not address it now, because it clearly is not in the amendment and I am wrapping up.
I fear that the vagueness on national security does not help this Bill, nor does it help national security and its role. Clarity is needed in the long term to help us provide better strategy and a better understanding of the opportunities and risks that face this country in the years ahead.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]
I start by congratulating Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, and by wishing for a violence-free inauguration today. Good riddance to the outgoing President. We will not miss his hate speech.
The National Security and Investment Bill seeks to usher in sweeping reforms to how our Government can scrutinise foreign investment. It proposes strong measures to toughen foreign investment rules and to bring the UK into line with other major countries in key sectors. These steps to keep high-growth and strategically important companies in the UK are overdue and highly welcome, but does the Secretary of State agree that, for the UK to have an active industrial policy that works in the public interest, the Government must go further than just blocking hostile mergers and acquisitions, and instead implement a robust industrial strategy that puts critical national infrastructure at the heart of Government policy?
One example is the recent takeover of Arm, the crown jewel of the British tech sector—a genuine global powerhouse worth more than £31 billion and with more than 6,000 employees. Its recent sale to Nvidia, a US tech giant worth more than £338 billion that is tucked away in the tax-light and secrecy-heavy state of Delaware, provides a clear example of the risky and problematic sale of a British firm to foreign investors, which threatens both security fears and job losses.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Enhanced protection of our national security is obviously at the heart of the Bill. It has come not before time, too. It has had a gestation period of something like seven years since the Intelligence and Security Committee first raised the matters that it addresses directly. As a member of the Committee, I will not repeat what my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Chair of the ISC, or the senior Opposition member of the ISC, the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), have said with regard to oversight of investments. I think the point has been well made, and I totally accept that the Minister gets those points.
Let us be clear, though, that if a potential enemy state can get critical information and technologies, it is highly likely to do so. In truth, as we all know, the UK is a primary target for a broad range of national security attacks from both foreign intelligence agencies and organisations, as well as companies, which certainly are operating at the moment. If a company that is British and world leading in a technology—for instance, artificial intelligence or robotics—is bought by a foreign investor from a country that is not particularly friendly to the UK, we must have a system to ensure that British technology, ideas and even hardware are not simply hijacked and possibly used against us. We have to stop that.
Unless the United Kingdom curbs the right of foreign firms and investors to obtain technologies through the means of mergers and acquisitions and similar, our advanced technologies could easily find their way into weapons systems of foreign, potentially hostile states. These days, weapons systems should be much more broadly defined. They include possible attacks on the way we live. For example, using the internet to turn off water purification and supplies or just sewerage would have a dramatic and immediate impact on British society. I reckon that is a weapons system these days. In future, investors will have no choice but to notify the Government if the ownership of certain businesses is to change hands. That is good news. I note, too, that the Secretary of State will also have the power to call in other businesses if he or she has concerns about national security. That is good, too: it allows for sensible flexibility.
In contrast to others who have spoken, I think we should be careful about defining exactly what national security involves because it changes all the time. It is difficult to pin it down. We know what it is, but I am worried about defining it.
Within the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will now sit this new investment security unit, which will be tasked with supervising sensitive sectors of our economy. I know that those sectors have yet to be fully defined, but most are pretty obvious—defence communications, energy, cryptography, satellite and space technologies and many more. But in the fast-moving modern world that we live in, it will also be important for the investment security unit to look actively at seemingly innocent technologies and systems, which in the wrong hands could bring our society to a grinding standstill. Others have mentioned the national grid: if that could be disabled by the simple means of remote instructions, the whole of the country’s electricity supplies could be turned off. Just think of how difficult that would be!
Keeping sovereign control over the methods of controlling something like the national grid is crucial. I presume and hope that the investment security unit will spend some time looking out for non-obvious threats. Having once been an intelligence officer, I know that trying to identify the threat, the signals that identify what is about to happen, is really difficult because they are embedded in a plethora of noise. But this investment security unit will have to try.
I am pleased that the Bill extends the current screening powers to allow the Secretary of State to investigate the acquisition of sensitive assets in intellectual property as well as the straightforward acquisition of companies. In short, I support the Bill and I am pleased that it has at last reached this stage.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). I join my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) and others in thanking the Bill Committee, the Clerks and others who supported us so well—including the expert witnesses from whom we got to hear during that fortnight. I had not sat through Second Reading, but we had a particularly enlightening series of sessions.
I wish to speak to new clauses 5, 6 and 7, which I will be supporting, along with the Bill. I emphasise how strongly colleagues and I feel about how important national security is, and how much Labour prioritises it. That is why we welcome the Bill, following, as it does, unfortunately, the leadership of states such as the United States, Germany and the EU; perhaps we are just that much behind the curve. I am sorry to say that it is clear that the Government failed to recognise the clear and present danger of the commercial strategy of other powers. Although I very much support the Bill, as it introduces the greater powers for Government to intervene when corporate transactions threaten our national security, it is late, perhaps even a decade or more late.
As so many have said, national security has traditionally been viewed quite narrowly. Perhaps we have had the light touch of economically liberal Governments welcoming investment when in fact those acquisitions are aimed at reducing the competition, improving margins and protecting domestic interests. Also we have seen the purpose being to asset-strip those businesses of their intellectual property, often at considerable cost to the UK in terms of our knowledge base and expertise, but with the risk of seriously damaging our supply chains and having the consequent economic impact. Often this results in those businesses moving overseas. So overall, although the Government’s proposal brings the UK in line with other countries on national security, there is the need for greater powers on mergers and acquisitions, particularly in respect of what may be deemed to be beyond security but actually in the national interest, as in the US and France, where they have the powers to block takeovers of companies deemed strategic or that have major implications for national interests.
I am afraid that the past 10 years show that consecutive Conservative and coalition Governments have been persistently slow and muted in intervening to protect national security in a series of cases: Huawei and 5G has been cited frequently this afternoon: Pfizer and AstraZeneca—the proposal of course failed, but we can only imagine what would have happened to the cost of vaccines had those two companies merged and had we been reliant on one major player; Google and DeepMind; and now Nvidia and Arm technologies. Among a great many others, we have also had the takeover of GKN by Melrose and the acquisition of Cobham aviation. They are now owned by businesses based in a friendly state, which is okay and acceptable, but it is questionable how we are prepared to let some of these important businesses—important leaders in technologies—be disposed of, with the assets, the research and the intellectual properties of those businesses moved offshore, to elsewhere.
New clause 5 seeks to define national security. Interestingly, the right hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), the former Secretary of State, has stated that the Government had a very narrow interpretation of national security. It was surprising what came to light in the Bill Committee, where we heard that, as I understand it, in drawing up this legislation the Government had failed to engage with the Intelligence and Security Committee in the first instance. That was a shortcoming. The evidence sessions proved more than enlightening, particularly when we were hearing from some of the expert witnesses. Some of what we heard was deeply disturbing. The words spoken by Charles Parton of the Royal United Services Institute were some of the most alarming of all. He said:
“we should not underestimate the degree to which Xi Jinping and the Communist party intend, as Xi said to the first politburo meeting, to get the upper hand against western democracies… When you add that to his policy of civil-military fusion—using civil in the military context—and the fact that he has set up a party organisation specifically to push that forward, and the change in investment policy away from things such as property, football clubs and other things, very much towards benefitting China and its technology, we have to be a lot more careful than we have been in the past.”
I think he said that, perhaps deliberately, with extraordinary understatement. Perhaps most alarmingly, he added:
“I am not aware of a really good assessment of just how much technology has been bought, the targets and so on. Maybe the Government have one—I don’t know—but I do not think that they do.”
––[Official Report, National Security and Investment Public Bill Committee, 24 November 2020; c. 6, Q2.]
Perhaps that is something that the Minister could answer when he sums up.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) [V]
This Bill is apposite. It is an appropriate response to an ever-pressing but rapidly changing problem: our national wellbeing. I want to speak briefly about its scope, its dynamism, and the oversight that is necessary to make it as effective as it can be.
That national security is inextricably linked to our national interest is axiomatic. It is obvious that our trade and investment also serve our interest. The potentially paradoxical objects of economic interest and keeping our nation safe are brought into sharp focus by the Bill, which I welcome, and I congratulate the Government and the Minister on bringing it forward. The Government response to the changing circumstances that we face could not be more significant. Malevolent forces of ill intent—both hostile state actors and non-state organisations, including global commercial interests—must be countered, curtailed and, where necessary, controlled. As the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) said, greater assiduity in this respect is to be commended. No longer can we be naive about the ethics of the free market or free trade; nor should we appease foreign powers that, frankly, embody tyrannical tendencies, in a chilling echo of the worst of the 20th century.
As the scope of the Bill’s provision must be used appropriately, so it should also be used as necessary, and as circumstances dictate. I am afraid it is not enough to count risk and resilience in the way we have, historically; we need to measure risk and prepare the necessary resilience in a new way. So I am sympathetic to new clauses 4 and 5, which look to establish factors to which the Secretary of State must have regard when assessing risk, but I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) said: given that that risk is as I have described it—dynamic—it is important that there should be a framework, rather than specifying precisely what the risks are or may be. It does seem to me, however, that the Government can do more work, as the Bill continues its passage through both Houses, to be clearer about the circumstances in which the Government might assess risk and define its character and the response to it.
That BEIS is to take the lead in this policy area is new, and it empowers Ministers in a very particular way, but in my estimation, security is likely to be the business of all aspects of Government. As has been said by previous speakers, in respect of health, is it really in the national interest for vital health supplies to be dependent on provision from unstable and unhelpful places? Should the supply of technology, which is so critical to so much of what we do in business, in the public sector and as individuals, be in the hands of those who are either capriciously cavalier or maliciously malign? Should our universities become so dependent on funds from overseas that they are obliged to transfer knowledge to individuals or states that may use it against us?
From now on, the whole of Government have to be associated with the effort to measure risk, develop resilience and understand the threats to our security. In those terms, the Bill must allow sufficient responsiveness to metamorphosising threats, to allow us to alter our response to counter those threats. That implies acting quickly and Ministers using their executive power without the scope, space or time always to seek parliamentary approval. If they did seek such approval, they would be doing so almost every week, certainly every month, and possibly by the day or hour. That is why oversight matters so much, yet the Bill is not yet quite right in that respect, as several contributors to the debate have said.
The existing accountability to Select Committees is valuable, but not enough. As the Chairman of the ISC, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), explained, that Committee is designated. Indeed, it was set up for precisely this purpose, dealing with highly sensitive information, including secret documents that would normally not pass through the House as a whole because of the public implications of that. Adequate oversight is therefore essential.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)
May I add my congratulations to President Biden and Vice-President Kamala Harris, and their national security team?
I thank all hon. Members who have tabled amendments and new clauses and have spoken to them so eloquently: the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie); my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis); the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah); my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat); the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock); the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), who spoke so pithily; my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher); the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones); the hon. Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry); my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith); the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely); the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson); my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart); the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), my neighbour; and of course my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who reminded us of the words of the great Edmund Burke.
National security is an area of utmost importance, and that has been reflected in a sober and considered debate, with the excellent contributions that we have heard today, and, indeed, over the past few months. I will take this opportunity to respond to some of the points raised this afternoon.
New clauses 4 and 5 create a non-exhaustive list of factors that the Secretary of State must have regard to when assessing national security risks arising from trigger events. In fact, the Secretary of State has joined us to demonstrate how important this Bill is to him. I congratulate him on his elevation to being my new boss at BEIS.
As currently drafted, the Bill does not seek to define national security or include factors that the Secretary of State must or may take into account when assessing national security risks. Instead, factors that the Secretary of State expects to take into account when deciding whether to exercise the call-in power are proposed to be set out in the statement provided for by clause 3, a draft of which was published alongside the Bill. The Secretary of State is unable to call in an acquisition of control until that statement has been laid before both Houses. It is clear from the debate today, and also from conversations with colleagues, that these are the amendments on which there is strongest feeling in the House, and in the Foreign Affairs and Development Committee, so I will take care to set out the Government’s case.
The Bill’s approach reflects the long-standing policy of Governments of different hues to ensure that powers relating to national security are sufficiently flexible to address the myriad risks that may arise. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham, national security risks are multi-faceted and constantly evolving, and what may constitute a risk today may not be a risk in the future. Indeed, the Foreign Affairs Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling, said in its own excellent report that
“an overly specific definition of national security could serve to limit the Government’s ability to protect UK businesses from unforeseen security risks.”
Bob Seely
Does the Minister accept that what is being proposed is not a limiting arena of what constitutes national security but a baseline of what constitutes national security, and that there may be a reason to adapt it over time? Indeed, paragraph (h) of new clause 4 makes an assumption that it can be expanded.
Nadhim Zahawi
My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I mentioned, the statement that the Secretary of State has laid with the Bill takes in much of the direction of travel of this amendment from the Foreign Affairs Committee.
I acknowledge that the Foreign Affairs Committee is pushing for more detail rather than less, but I would reassure them that the Government agree with their main conclusion that the Secretary of State should provide as much detail as possible on the factors that will be taken into account when considering national security. Importantly, however, that is only up until the point that the detail risks the protection of national security itself. That is why the Government have taken this approach in the draft statement provided for by clause 3. In that statement, we identify three types of risk that are proposed to form the basis of the call-in national security assessment. These are: the target risk, which considers the nature of the acquisition and where it lies in the economy; the trigger event risk, which considers the level of control and how it might be used; and the acquirer risk, which covers the extent to which the acquirer raises national security concerns.
I would like to address each of the arguments made in the report, so that I can ease the concerns of hon. Members across the House. First, there are concerns that without a narrow definition of national security, the investment screening unit would be inundated by notifications, hampering its ability to deliver its crucial role. I acknowledge that, for business confidence in the regime, it is essential that we deliver on our statutory timeframes for decisions, which is why it is so essential that we do not allow any broadening of the assessment done by officials as part of the regime to occur, whether by inexhaustive lists, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight has just said, or by any other form. To include modern slavery, genocide and tax evasion as factors that the Secretary of State must take into account as part of national security assessments, as these amendments propose, would not reduce the demands on the investment security unit but potentially increase them.
Secondly, there is concern that ambiguity could hinder the success of the regime. Let me be clear that this regime is about protecting national security—nothing more, nothing less—hence its real focus. Thirdly, the Foreign Affairs Committee report suggests that the staff responsible for screening transactions may lack sufficient clarity on what kinds of transactions represent legitimate national security risks, leading to important transactions being missed or to a large volume of benign transactions overwhelming the investment security unit. I want to assure hon. Members, and my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, that the investment security unit will be staffed by the brightest and best, with many of them being recruited on the basis that they have essentially written the book on national security.
Tom Tugendhat
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting this point. May I assure him that I have absolute confidence that the people he will recruit into the unit will be the best and brightest? I pay huge tribute and send many congratulations to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, who is sitting next to him. He is a friend of long standing, and I am delighted to see him serving Cabinet; that is well earned and somewhat overdue. I am sure that they are both going to have the best judgment possible. However—I am afraid there is a “however”—there are other people who are going to have to decide whether or not to file, and there is therefore a danger that people will over-file, even though the judgments will have been very cautiously made.
Nadhim Zahawi
That is something I have been watching carefully as we introduced this legislation, obviously. We have had around 36 inquiries to the team already, so it feels to me that where we have landed is proportionate and right.
Mr Kevan Jones
I have no doubt that the Minister will aim to recruit the brightest and best. However, what assurance can he give that those individuals will have not only the necessary security clearance but the culture of thinking about security, as opposed to business and regulation?
Nadhim Zahawi
They will be able to draw on all the experience, culture and, of course, resources of Government to be able to do their job properly, I assure the right hon. Member of that.
The report sets out a fear, as we have heard elsewhere, that without a definition of national security in the Bill, interventions under the NSI regime will be politicised. I wholeheartedly agree that it is crucial for the success of the regime that decisions made are not political but rather technocratic, dispassionate and well judged. I repeat the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), the former Business Secretary, who on Second Reading assured the House that:
“The Government will not be able to use these powers to intervene in business transactions for broader economic or public interest reasons, and we will not seek to interfere in deals on political grounds.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 210.]
Indeed, if the Secretary of State took into account political factors outside the remit of national security, the decision could not be upheld on judicial review. It is with this in mind, and our focus on protecting foreign direct investment, which so many colleagues are concerned about, especially as we come out of the covid challenge, that politicised decisions will not be possible under the NSI regime. I hope right hon. and hon. Members feel I have sufficiently explained the Government’s approach. We have sought to deliver what the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Opposition recommend.
Bob Seely
I will not labour the point beyond this. The Minister says that tax evasion will not be a bar. I accept that the Government made that statement. Does he accept that, in Australia, tax evasion is one of those significant elements? He rather implies that tax evasion and tax evaders will not be opposed in buying UK companies, so how high will the bar be set on criminality or on unsavoury characters—maybe people close to Russian Presidents and oligarchs and questionable companies?
Nadhim Zahawi
As colleagues have said, the Bill has been a long time in gestation, from 2017 to the 2018 consultation and White Paper and now today. We look at what other countries do, and I think we have reached a proportionate position. Of course, as I say, the Secretary of State’s statement sets out exactly how he would assess the risks to national security. I hope I have addressed that.
My final point of reassurance is that there will be further scrutiny on this point. As I explained in Committee, the statement provided for by clause 3 will go out to full public consultation prior to being laid before Parliament, and the Government will listen carefully to any proposals for further detail.
Amendments 1, 2, 3 and 6 broadly seek to ensure that the scope of the regime as a whole is right, that mandatory notification covers the right sectors and that both the statement and the notifiable acquisition regulations are reviewed within a year. Amendment 1 would require notifiable acquisition regulations to be reviewed within a year of having been made, and once every five years thereafter. It is right that the Secretary of State keeps a constant watch on these regulations. Indeed, it is vital that he has the flexibility to reassess and, if needed, seek to update the regulations at any time. The nature of his responsibilities under the regime creates sufficient incentive for this regular review.
Amendment 2 would, in effect, introduce two further trigger events to the regime. It would mean that a person becoming a major debt holder would count as a person gaining control of a qualifying entity. The amendment would also mean that a person becoming a major supplier to an entity counted as a person gaining control of a qualifying entity.
We on the Government Benches believe that access to finance is crucial for so many small businesses and large businesses to grow and succeed. They will often take out loans secured against the very businesses and assets that they have fought so hard to build; I did just that when I started YouGov. That is why the Bill allows the Secretary of State to scrutinise acquisitions of control that take place where lenders exercise rights over such collateral, but the Government do not consider that the provision of loans and finance is automatically a national security issue. Indeed, it is part of a healthy business ecosystem that enables businesses to flourish in this country.
Dr Julian Lewis
For the sake of clarity, the annual report that will be supplied to Parliament will not have any security-sensitive information in it. The Minister says that we could request further information. The only information we want to request is the information of a security-sensitive nature that will routinely have played a part in leading to these decisions. I do not want to tell any tales out of school. All I can say is that the Minister seemed very receptive when I put forward the idea of an annexe to the report, which would come to the Committee, or alternatively there could be an unredacted or redacted version of the report. Is he saying that the Cabinet Office is declining to do that? If so, it would appear that the malign influence of one Mr Cummings is not entirely eliminated from that Department.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s intervention. What I was saying is that there are no restrictions. His Committee will be able to invite the Secretary of State to give evidence to it, and it will also be able to ask for further information, which the unit will be able to provide.
Mr Kevan Jones
The Minister is wrong when he talks about asking the Secretary of State, because his is not one of the Departments that we overlook, but it is already there that this information be provided. I do not know why he and the Government are resisting this, because it will give certain confidence in terms of ensuring that decisions are taken on national security grounds. If he thinks for one minute that the Cabinet Office will divulge information easily to us, I can assure him that it will not. It does not do so. We have to drag it out of them kicking and screaming every time. I am sorry, but this is very disappointing.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Let me repeat again: there are no restrictions on the Committee requesting further information from the unit or from the Secretary of State.
Dr Lewis
Is this what the Minister wants? Every year, the Committee will request to have a comprehensive explanation of the security sensitive information that has underlain the different decisions that the unit has taken. All he is saying is that we can request this ad hoc every year and we will get it—I will believe that when I see it. If that were to be the case, there could be no possible objection to incorporating this in the legislation now so that it is not at the whim of a future Minister to either give us what we need or deny us what we need.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention and his powerful argument, but I just repeat that there are no restrictions on his Committee requesting that information.
Nadhim Zahawi
I will not give way. There is a lot to get through and time is short.
The Government will more generally monitor the operation of the regime and regularly review the contents of the annual reports, including in relation to academic research, spin-off enterprise or SMEs, and we will pay close attention to the resourcing and the timelines of the regime.
If, during any financial year, the assistance given under clause 30 totals £100 million or more, the Bill requires the Secretary of State to lay a report of the amount before the House. Requiring him to lay what would likely be a very similar report for every calendar year as well as for every financial year, which is in amendment 4, appears to be excessive in our view. He would likely have to give Parliament two very similar reports only a few months apart.
On amendment 5, I can reassure the House that, under clause 54, the Secretary of State would be subject to public law duties when deciding whether to share information with an overseas public authority. That includes a requirement to take all relevant considerations into account in making decisions. These are therefore considerations that the Secretary of State would already need to take into account in order to comply with public law duties.
Moving on to new clause 6, I want to be clear that we do not expect the regime to disproportionately affect SMEs, although we will of course closely monitor its impact. The Government have been happy to provide support to businesses both large and small through the contact address available on gov.uk. Furthermore, the factsheets make it clear what the measures in the proposed legislation are and to whom they apply, so there is real clarity on this. It would therefore not be necessary to provide the grace period for SMEs proposed under new clause 3 and neither would it be appropriate. Notifiable acquisitions by SMEs may well present national security concerns and this proposed new clause would, I am afraid, create a substantial loophole.
To conclude, although I am very grateful for the constructive and collegiate engagement from hon. and right hon. Members across the House, for the reasons that I have mentioned I cannot accept the amendments and new clauses tabled for this debate and therefore hope that they will agree to withdraw them.
Stewart Hosie [V]
This has been a detailed and considered debate. I thought there were some particularly thoughtful contributions from the Chair of the ISC and from the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) in relation to the oversight of sensitive and confidential information that should fall within the remit of the ISC. It was disappointing to hear the Minister’s response in his last contribution. My main concern, however, was to ensure that the scope of the Bill was appropriate and that the impact of the measures was proportionate, particularly for smaller businesses and for academia. Given what the Minister has just said about the regulations and procedures being under constant watch, with the Secretary of State having the flexibility to update them at any time, I am satisfied that, should we identify an overly burdensome course of action being taken in relation to small businesses or academia in the future, the Minister would respond swiftly. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 4
Framework for understanding national security
“When assessing a risk to national security for the purposes of this Act, the Secretary of State must have regard to factors including, but not restricted to—
(a) the potential impact of the trigger event on the UK’s defence capabilities and interests;
(b) whether the trigger event risks enabling a hostile actor to—
(i) gain control or significant influence of a part of a critical supply chain, critical national infrastructure, or natural resource;
(ii) conduct espionage via or exert undue leverage over the target entity;
(iii) obtain access to sensitive sites or to corrupt processes or systems;
(c) the characteristics of the acquirer, including whether it is effectively directly or indirectly under the control, or subject to the direction, of a foreign government;
(d) whether the trigger event adversely impacts the UK’s capability and capacity to maintain security of supply or strategic capability in sectors critical to the UK’s economy or creates a situation of significant economic dependency;
(e) the potential impact of the trigger event on the transfer of sensitive data, technology or potentially sensitive intellectual property in strategically important sectors, outside of the UK;
(f) the potential impact of the trigger event on the UK’s international interests and obligations, including compliance with UK legislation on modern slavery and compliance with the UN Genocide Convention;
(g) the potential of the trigger event to involve or facilitate significant illicit or subversive activities, including terrorism, organised crime, money laundering and tax evasion; and
(h) whether the trigger event may adversely impact the safety and security of UK citizens or the UK.”—(Tom Tugendhat.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
First, I would like to pay tribute to my immediate predecessor, my right hon. Friend—my very good friend—the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), who took the Bill through on Second Reading. I pay tribute to him for being such a motivating force behind this Bill, and also for providing excellent leadership in our Department up to only a couple of weeks ago. I wish him well, and I am sure he will continue the excellent work that he has already started as president of COP26, which I am sure will be a brilliant and vital success.
I would like to return to the very core of why we need this Bill. As my right hon. Friend told this House, the UK remains
“open for business, but being open for business does not mean that we are open to exploitation. An open approach to international investment must also include”—
has to include—
“appropriate safeguards to protect our national security.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 205.]
This Bill provides those safeguards.
Subject to the debate in the other place and the views of the other place, the Government will be automatically informed of certain acquisitions in key sectors and will be able to scrutinise a range of others across the economy. The Government will also be able to look at deals involving assets, including intellectual property, whose acquisition might pose a national security concern. There will be no thresholds for intervention, as there are currently under the Enterprise Act 2002. This means that acquisitions involving emerging innovative businesses will also be covered by the Bill. All this adds up to a significant upgrade to our abilities and powers to reflect the sweeping technological, economic and geopolitical changes across the globe over the past 20 years.
I would like to make further acknowledgement of the work done so ably by those from across the House and in my Department that has got us to this point. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), and the Bill team for their fantastic work to date. He even managed to convince me. I know he is working flat out to ensure we can all return to normal before too long. I thank those who have ensured that the proceedings of this House continued without any disruption in the meantime. I therefore place on record, Mr Deputy Speaker, my thanks to you, to Madam Deputy Speaker, and to all the House staff who have ensured that today’s proceedings and previous stages of the Bill were undertaken with exemplary smoothness—no mean feat in the circumstances.
I also thank the members of the Public Bill Committee from across the House for their keen and diligent scrutiny of the Bill, and particularly its Chairs, the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) and my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady). I also thank all those who contributed to this very important debate. We heard from eminent Select Committee Chairs. My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) is no longer in his place, but I have known him for a very long time, and I was very pleased to hear his able contribution to this debate. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee. His expertise is widely acknowledged across the House and was brought to bear in the proceedings.
In addition, we heard from Members from across the House, including my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), and my hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) and for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith). The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) is an acknowledged expert, and devotes himself to these highly important issues. There were also contributions I noted from the hon. Members for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), for Ilford South (Sam Tarry), for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I thank all those right hon. and hon. Members for their important contributions.
Although there have been one or two differences, I have above all been struck by the broad consensus that has emerged across the House on the Bill, and by how important it is that we all agree that the Government should act in this area. There is a degree of debate about the details of the Bill. I thank the Opposition Front Benchers—the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah)—and the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie). All have acknowledged the need for this crucial legislation. Broadly, they have approached the Bill in a constructive manner. For that, my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and I are and have been extremely grateful.
Returning to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West said on Second Reading, this country has always been a beacon for inward investment and a champion of free trade. The Bill does not change that. It does not turn its back on that history, but it feels very apposite for me to say that prosperity and security should go hand in hand. The Bill really captures that insight and represents a proportionate approach to the threats we face in today’s world. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
As this is the first time I have been in the Chair since your promotion and appearance at the Dispatch Box, I congratulate you on your new role.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab) [V]
May I begin by adding my congratulations to the new Secretary of State? Promotion to the Cabinet with such an important role as Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy must be a proud moment for him, and it is in the interests of the country that he succeeds, so I offer him my warmest congratulations. I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma). We all wish him incredibly well in his important job as the full-time president of COP26. He and I approached our exchanges in a constructive spirit, meeting, I hope, the mood of the times, and I hope that I can have the same relationship with the Secretary of State.
If you will allow me to, Mr Deputy Speaker, I extend our congratulations to President Biden and Vice-President Harris; I think it is right to, as they came to office only in the last hour. The world already feels a better, fairer, and safer place than it did yesterday.
In this Third Reading debate, let me make it clear that we welcome and support the Bill as a necessary step in protecting our national security interests. It is important that we legislate to ensure that our national security is preserved in the face of evolving geopolitical, economic and, in particular, technological threats. Our country has been behind the curve on this issue and behind our allies, so action is long overdue. The Bill represents a belated recognition that the country requires a stronger regime to protect its national security.
Protecting national security is the essential, first duty of any Government, but it is only the first building block of an industrial policy. Before I discuss the Bill in more detail and how I hope it will be improved in the other place, I emphasise to the Secretary of State that while it is welcome, it forms only one part, though a particularly important part, of protecting, developing and nurturing key sectors of our economy. There are much wider lessons on which we still need to act on industrial policy. That forms the essential context for the Bill, and I flag it to the Secretary of State, as it is early in his tenure.
I say this in the constructive spirit that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech: I gather that the Secretary of State has said that he is a convert to industrial policy after, if I can put it this way, his wilder, free-market days. The days of his notorious pamphlet, “Britannia Unchained”, are apparently over, but there are important lessons that we have to draw on; the most fundamental is that good words from Government on strategic, mission-led industrial policy are welcome, but too often they are still not matched by deeds. That has been clear during this economic crisis.
One example is the scale of support provided to our manufacturing sector. Time after time, I have spoken to manufacturers who look enviously at support in other countries and say that the Government are simply not in the same league. We see it, too, in plans for a green recovery; I am afraid that the stimulus offered by France, Germany and others puts us in the shade. Indeed, while we have been debating the Bill, President Biden has, on being inaugurated, made a $2 trillion commitment to the green economy.
Our takeover regime is not fit for purpose when it comes to matters well beyond national security, either, as events over the last decade have shown—for example, there was Pfizer’s attempted takeover of AstraZeneca, and SoftBank’s takeover of Arm.
It is clearer than ever that when it comes to the big challenges facing this country, from national security to the climate emergency and our future prosperity, an active industrial policy will be one of the most important tools in our arsenal. The challenge for the Secretary of State is to match his words on industrial policy with deeds, and we will judge him on that. We certainly need to drop the tired, failed cliché that all the state can do to support the economy is get out of the way, deregulate, and cut workers’ rights. If that is the Secretary of State’s view of how best to support our economy, let me tell him that we will fight him every step of the way.
On the Bill, we have approached the task of legislating constructively, and I am grateful to the Secretary of State for acknowledging that. I pay tribute in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) for the brilliant job she has done in taking the Bill through the House on behalf of the Opposition. I also put on the record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), and my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), for Ilford South (Sam Tarry), for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), and for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), for their work on the Bill. I acknowledge the role of the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), who has a big and important task relating to public health, and has also done an assiduous job on the Bill.
As we saw on Report, there are three particular ways in which Opposition Members believe that the Bill needs to be improved. I will briefly put them on the record, because they represent unfinished business for the other place. First, there is the issue of the definition of national security, and how it can be clarified for use in the Bill. We recognise, as we have said on a number of occasions, the difficulty of providing a comprehensive definition, given the evolving nature of the threats we face as a country. However, the Bill can and should provide greater clarity, not least for potential investors in the UK. I agree with the Secretary of State that it is important that our country be open for business.
That definition could be provided in the Bill or in other ways, and would be an essential source of reassurance for inward investors. The Foreign Affairs Committee published an excellent report on this yesterday, and as we saw on Report, there is agreement between the Opposition and that Committee on these issues. We hope the Government will continue to listen, and will act on this in the other place.
Secondly, support for business, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, is vital if they are to navigate this new regime. As my colleagues said on Report, SMEs will account for an estimated 80% of mandatory notifications under the new system, according to the Government. Many small firms will struggle to navigate this new system. This comes at a time when hundreds of thousands of SMEs across the country are in perilous circumstances. That is why we called for dedicated help and support for SMEs—to ease the burden as this new system comes into effect. If we are serious about nurturing cutting-edge businesses in sectors such as robotics and quantum technologies, it is critical that SMEs in these industries are supported through the process.
Thirdly and finally, there is the crucial issue—it is worth spending time on this—of the resourcing, accountability and scrutiny of the newly created unit in the Department and its work. We all know from the experience of both parties in government that good intentions can be overwhelmed by challenges of practical delivery. Under this regime, the Government expect that there may be up to 1,830 notifications by businesses and individuals, with a further 70 to 100 being called in by the Secretary of State. The number could well be higher than that as businesses adjust to the new system. The Secretary of State has a big, profound responsibility, as I am sure he recognises, to make sure this system works.
It is also vital that the new regime be scrutinised and monitored. As we have said throughout the passage of the Bill, that should include a role for the Intelligence and Security Committee in providing an oversight mechanism, through which there is regular reporting to the House, and regular scrutiny of the working of the new unit. Secretary of State, our international allies do exactly that. The US, for example, requires oversight of CFIUS in exactly this way. The Chair of the ISC, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), said that the Committee is open to this idea. It is not about simply saying to the ISC that it can have a look at this if it wants to. It needs a proper, acknowledged role in this. It is in all our interests, and indeed the Secretary of State’s, that the ISC performs this role. That would reassure businesses in this country that there is proper scrutiny—undertaken in the right way, given the constraints around national security—of the working of this new regime. I hope the Secretary of State will ponder this matter and keep it under review. I am sure that it will be raised in the other place.
To conclude, we support the Bill as a necessary measure to protect our national security interests from evolving threats. We do so hoping that the Government have heard the constructive concerns that we have raised throughout the passage of the Bill and will continue to raise and that Members in the other place will raise, because I believe we can build on and improve the Bill as it progresses. We believe—I emphasise this point—that this is the first step for the active industrial policy that our country needs. It only marks the start of what is required.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I would like to add my congratulations to the 46th President of the United States of America. In the past, I have worked on three presidential elections. I congratulate both Joe Biden and his Vice-President, Kamala Harris. I am certain that when they visit the United Kingdom, they will be guaranteed a very warm welcome.
Dr Julian Lewis
Mr Deputy Speaker, may I begin this short contribution by warmly endorsing what you had to say by way of congratulations to the new Secretary of State? He is genuinely one of the most popular Members in any part of the House, and I am sure that his delayed but nevertheless entirely merited accession to the Cabinet was greeted with wide acclamation.
The best must never be allowed to be the enemy of the good. This is a good Bill, but there are, as the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) said, opportunities for it to be improved further in another place, which I hope will happen. It is never good form to repeat from the lengthier preliminary stages what one has said in any detail in the final Third Reading debate, so I will just quote one small extract from the memorandum of understanding between the Prime Minister and the ISC, which the Secretary of State may not have heard me read earlier. Paragraph 8 of the memorandum of understanding says:
“only the ISC is in a position to scrutinise effectively the work of the Agencies and of those parts of Departments”—
meaning other Departments such as his—
“whose work is directly concerned with intelligence and security matters.”
On Report, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), said that it will be open to the ISC to request the secret information that cannot be published. That is a great step forward, and I thank him for it genuinely, because previously there were remarks to the effect that the ISC’s writ did not run anywhere near the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. That appears to have been dropped, and that is a big step forward.
The reason why it is necessary to recognise this is not that we want to make extra work for ourselves. It is because we entirely agree with the Government that the security threats constantly change, morph and spread themselves out into different areas of activity and, inevitably therefore, into different areas for which different Departments have responsibility. We cannot possibly do our job of inspecting and scrutinising those parts of security issue information that have to be classified if we are not allowed to go into those Departments only in so far as that type of information has spread with a new threat into a different Department. If the Government are saying—and I see some nodding heads on the Front Bench—that it is now accepted that the ISC can ask the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy for this sort of information, that is a huge step forward, and we thank the Government for it. We still believe that it would be better for it to be formalised in the way that Sir Richard Dearlove suggested in Committee.
I will conclude with a message that I would like the Ministers to take to their colleagues in the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office seems to have a strange sort of fear of the Intelligence and Security Committee, because every time we try to do our job, it seems to want to push back. The message I wish to give to them is this: “Friends, colleagues—comrades, even—of the Cabinet Office, the ISC is not your enemy. We are your constructively critical friends. You know what? Sometimes we get it right: we got it right over Huawei. It would have been good if successive Governments had listened a bit earlier over Huawei, but they got there in the end. If you lock us out, you are simply shutting off a safety valve and a mechanism for correcting mistakes that you need not make. Don’t make that mistake again. Apart from that, congratulations on a very good Bill indeed.”
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) [V]
I also offer my congratulations to the Secretary of State on his promotion. I thank all the staff who have worked on the Bill so far and the businesses, trade bodies and others that advised on what might or might not be good about the legislation as it has gone through its stages. Finally, I thank Members from all parties—not just those who took part in the set piece debates, but those who put in a shift in Committee as well. They did a fantastic job.
In this short Third Reading speech, I should say briefly that I share the general agreement that this legislation is not just necessary—it is—but overdue. There is a broad consensus that that is the case. Changes may yet be made in the other place—including, I hope, as we just heard from the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, a formal role for the ISC—but whether those changes happen or not, we must now all hope that this legislation will go on to deliver the anticipated additional national security benefits. As that happens, the Government must also step in quickly if the impact of the Bill starts to chill vital investment across different areas of the economy.
I am sure that the first part will happen: that the national security benefits will be there and obvious for all to see. We must all, however, be on our guard and realise that the burdens that we are placing on businesses —to notify when investment is happening or to have investment called in subsequently—may chill investment. We must all guard against that to make sure that, as well as there being additional security for those in the UK, businesses can continue to grow, thrive and seek the investment they need.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I will make four quick points. The first is that I am pleased that we have improved the prospects for national security through this Bill. Well done, everyone! My second point is that I am also pleased that the Intelligence and Security Committee will have some role in the oversight of sensitive investment decisions, albeit in retrospect. I fully expect that to happen, as the Chair of the ISC has already suggested and the Minister has accepted.
My third point is that I am clear that the new investment security unit will have to have close links with the security services—probably with liaison officers. I make my final point as a member of the ISC. I guarantee that our job is simple: to ensure that the pro-business outlook of the Government is tempered, if necessary, by the requirements of national security.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I start by congratulating the Secretary of State on his appointment; I wish him well in the years to come. I also thank the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), for how he has conducted himself during the Bill—I just say that Chester-le-Street would be a lot happier if extra vaccines arrived this week. I just wanted to get that plug in yet again.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), who has led on this Bill for Her Majesty’s Opposition. Following the comments from the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) about the scrutiny of this Act, once the Bill becomes one, I welcome the recognition that the ISC has a role. The Minister, in response to me and the right hon. Gentleman, said that there is nothing to stop the ISC asking the Business Secretary to come before it or asking for information on the Bill. I do not for one minute doubt the integrity of the two Ministers, but they—like me and us all—are, to use a Robin Day phrase, “here today, gone tomorrow” politicians. Legislation has to stand for a length of time in terms of different Ministers and people who will look at it. The only way to do that is to formalise this.
If we were asking, in terms of the ISC, for an overcomplicated system or something that was completely alien to the culture of scrutiny, I could accept that, but we are not. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the mechanism is there already. All we have to do is enact it. That means that when the two Ministers and I have moved on, and when even the Chair of the ISC has gone on to greater and better things, there will be a mechanism in place to ensure that there is parliamentary scrutiny of those decisions, because some will be very controversial. As I said on Report, there is no way in which the ISC wants to act as a regulator or to have some veto over decisions—it is for Ministers to do that—but it is important to ensure that Parliament has oversight of those decisions. The only Committee that can do that is the ISC, because of its security classification.
I join the Chair of the ISC in saying to the Secretary of State: this is about standing up to the Cabinet Office. On the idea that the ISC can ask for information, sometimes getting information that, actually, we are entitled to see, is like getting blood out of a stone. If we formalised that, as suggested by the Chair of the ISC, it would give oversight of the decisions taken, which would strengthen the decision-making process and ensure that we could at least see what intelligence is there; no one else could see it, apart from the Ministers taking the decisions obviously. That would strengthen the entire process, so I ask the Secretary of State to reflect on the matter, as clearly it will come up again when the Bill goes to the other place.
There is a tendency, which I never liked when the Labour party was in government, for suggestions to be put forward in this place and the Government then to leave things to be changed in the other place, as though it is somehow a sign of failure on behalf of a governing party—I aim this not just at this Government but at any Government. It is as though, if a Bill is amended by a suggestion from the Opposition or anyone else, it is somehow, in this place, a sign of weakness and failure. It is not. That is what we are here to do. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) said, this is a very important Bill, which has cross-party support. Anything that we can do to improve it is not being done from a point of criticism of the Government. We are trying to improve the Bill, and the suggestion from the right hon. Member for New Forest East would do that. It is simple, so I ask the Secretary of State seriously to reflect on it.
In conclusion, I finish where I began by welcoming the Secretary of State and wishing him well in the job that he has before him.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) [V]
Having had the privilege of serving on the Bill Committee, and therefore having analysed it in detail, I believe the Bill ensures that the Government have the necessary powers to scrutinise and intervene in business transactions, such as takeovers, to protect national security. I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to his new role, and congratulate the Ministers, their team, the parliamentary Committees and everyone else involved in preparing this legislation with such care and inclusivity in respect of views and opinions. I respect the Opposition’s constructive approach in Committee and in today’s debate.
Having worked in the financial sector for 25 years before becoming an MP, I believe the Bill provides investors and businesses with the certainty and transparency they need to do business in the UK. As the Conservative small business ambassador for Wales, who strongly believes in the importance of free trade and foreign direct investment for businesses in my constituency, Clwyd South, and in the rest of Wales and the UK, I consider that the Bill strikes the right balance between protecting national security and preserving the position of the UK as an open and liberal international trading partner. Indeed, I would go further and say that the Bill’s provisions strengthen the UK’s position as an attractive place to invest. We are not alone in making such reforms; many of our allies have modernised their investment-screening regimes in recent years, which will mean that investors will be familiar with the approach in the Bill.
In my previous career in finance, I saw at first hand the crucial importance and attraction to overseas investors and companies of the UK’s established legal system, highly competitive tax regime and stable regulatory framework. The Bill reinforces these invaluable assets for the UK by updating our regulatory approach. Having heard many submissions by expert witnesses in the Bill Committee stage, I am convinced that the Bill will also make interaction with Government much simpler and more transparent for businesses and investors, enabling legitimate investments to be screened much more quickly than they are under the current regime.
The Bill is not a signal that the Government have reduced their appetite for foreign investment, but is a proportionate response to the small number of transactions that raise national security threats. One of the most striking parts of the Bill Committee was hearing the severe warnings from experts such as Sir Richard Dearlove about the minority of individuals and regimes that seek to use foreign investment to undermine our national security. The Bill will ensure that that does not happen.
UK citizens’ safety and our economy rely on the Government’s protecting security, and it is only right that with new threats, new powers are put into place to achieve that. If the Government took no further action, unchecked hostile behaviour could leave the UK vulnerable to disruption, unfair leverage and espionage. We cannot let that happen, so I am pleased to support wholeheartedly the Third Reading of the Bill, which brings a much-needed update to the Government’s investment-screening powers, most of which date from 2002 and are not suited to the new world and the modern threats that we face. The Bill is proportionate and measured and will provide much needed long-term security for the UK as one of the most attractive and dynamic countries in which to invest in the world.
Jim Shannon
On behalf of the Democratic Unionist party, I congratulate the Secretary of State on his elevation. It is a well-deserved promotion, so congratulations and well done.
May I echo your comments, Mr Deputy Speaker, in relation to the election of the President of the United States, Joe Biden, and his Vice-President, Kamala Harris? I wish them both well and hope they have a very strong relationship over the next few years.
We are all aware that the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Defence Committee both launched inquiries in 2020 that touch on concerns relating to the current Competition and Markets Authority regime. As the Library briefing for this debate makes clear:
“Comments from the Chairs of the inquiries indicated that there could be support for a strengthened regime in order to protect national security”;
I believe that today the Government and the Secretary of State have ensured that. However, neither Committee has yet reported in full, and I am keen to see their recommendations and findings being part of the foundation of any change in legislation. I know that the Government and particularly the Secretary of State, like me, highly value the work of those Committees and the findings that they present. I would be interested to see the work undertaken by those renowned Committees in tandem with the Bill to ensure that we achieve a holistic approach to this matter of national security.
Will the Secretary of State outline how he believes that those concerns are addressed in the Bill? What surety and certainty can we have, for example, that a small independent business that is setting up in Ards business centre in my constituency—a family-run business, with an American investor who is a close family friend—will not fall foul of this legislation, and that the Bill will not prevent investment by foreign investors in Northern Ireland, which undoubtedly has the UK’s most attractive investment potential? I would say that, of course, but I believe it to be the case as well.
Some have questioned this radical overhaul, particularly given that only 12 national security investigations have been undertaken under the existing regime. There are also concerns, I believe, that the expanded notification system will lead to a dramatic increase in cases subject to review, leading to bureaucracy as well as delay and doubts for potential investment decisions—a situation that might discourage investment. Again, can the Secretary of State assure us that investment will be encouraged? The impact assessment published alongside the Bill indicates that there could be 1,000 to 1,830 transactions notified under the new system each year.
Those are some queries—fundamental questions, too—that I believe deserve acknowledgement and a response, so I would sincerely appreciate it if the Secretary of State gave further assurances that we are equipped and ready to deal with these changes, and that we will not lose investment at a time when the need to rebuild is stronger than at any time since the second world war.
We need investment, but I agree with the Government that the security of our nation is paramount. I give my full support in that aim to the Secretary of State and our Government, and I trust that they will enable investment in areas that are straightforward, without backlogs or delays.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
In order for Members to leave the Chamber safely and others to come in, and for the sanitisation of both Dispatch Boxes, I will suspend the sitting for a few minutes.
Electoral Commission
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call the Leader of the House to move the motion, I should inform the House that I have not selected the amendment in the name of Mr Peter Bone.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Alexander Attwood as an Electoral Commissioner with effect from 1 February 2021 for the period ending on 31 January 2024.
The Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission has produced a report, its sixth report of 2020, in relation to this motion and it may help if I set out the key points for the record. Electoral commissioners are appointed under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 as amended by the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009. Under the Act, the Speaker’s Committee has the responsibility to oversee the selection of candidates for appointment to the Electoral Commission, including the reappointment of commissioners.
If this appointment were made, Alexander Attwood would be one of four nominated commissioners. Nominated commissioners are put forward by the leaders of registered political parties with two or more Members in the House of Commons at the time of the appointment. Three of the four nominated commissioners are put forward by the leaders of the three largest parties in the House of Commons. In the case of the fourth commissioner —the position in question today—the other qualifying parties are each invited to nominate candidates for that one post.
This appointment is necessary because of the resignation of Alastair Ross last year. I thank Mr Ross for his service on the commission. In May last year Mr Speaker wrote to the leaders of the Liberal Democrats, the Democratic Unionist party, Plaid Cymru and the Social Democratic and Labour party asking them for their nominations to replace Mr Ross. Three candidates were put forward. The Speaker’s Committee appointed an interview panel to assess each of these candidates against agreed criteria. The panel consisted of Philippa Helme CB, the independent chairman, Sir John Holmes, then chairman of the Electoral Commission, the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney). The panel interviewed the candidates on 7 September. Its recommendation was that Alexander Attwood, the candidate nominated by the Social Democratic and Labour party, should go forward as its preferred candidate.
The Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission considered the panel’s report and recommendations, and agreed to recommend that Mr Attwood be appointed for a three-year term. Once the Speaker’s Committee has reached a decision, statute should require that Mr Speaker consult the leaders of political parties represented at Westminster on the proposed reappointments. The statutory consultation provides an opportunity for the party leaders to comment, but they are not required to do so. No objection to Mr Attwood’s appointment was received in response to this consultation.
Mr Attwood has significant political experience in Northern Ireland. He served as a Belfast City councillor, representing West Belfast. He was an elected Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly between 1998 and 2017 and held ministerial office in the Northern Ireland Executive. The interview panel found Mr Attwood to be an impressive candidate who met all the essential criteria for the position.
If the appointment were made, Mr Attwood would serve as an electoral commissioner for three years. I hope that the House will support this appointment, and I wish Mr Atwood success in this important role and commend this motion to the House.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
I thank the outgoing member of the commission, Mr Alastair Ross, who served on the Electoral Commission from November 2018 to February 2020.
The Speaker’s Committee appointed a panel to consider the nominee to the Electoral Commission and I thank the panel for its work. In the report of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, its sixth report in this Session, Mr Alexander Attwood was selected by the panel to serve as an electoral commissioner. The panel said that Mr Attwood’s
“experience of consensus building and handling hostile criticism would be of great value to the Electoral Commission.”
Mr Attwood was appointed by John Hume to the Dublin Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in 1997. The Opposition support the motion, and wish Mr Attwood well in his work.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the shadow Minister and the Leader of the House. I have concerns about today’s motion. Hopefully, the Leader of the House will be able to reassure me in his closing remarks. This is a very important appointment. There are only 10 electoral commissioners, and they have, overall, five different strategic reasons for being there. The most important, perhaps, is to set the overall strategic direction of the commission, to ensure delivery of its strategic goals, and to ensure public confidence in democracy.
As the Leader of the House rightly said, the process was started way back last year, and many things have changed since that process began. If the Electoral Commission had widespread support, a routine appointment of another electoral commissioner would be no problem. I fear that both the Leader of the House and the shadow Minister are treating it in that respect. I have a great deal of personal experience of dealing with the Electoral Commission, before and during the 2016 EU referendum. Since the appointment process started, there has been a huge amount of criticism of the Electoral Commission, and we do not know what Mr Attwood’s views on the proposed changes are.
I have absolutely no criticism of Mr Attwood. I do not know him, but his CV looks very good and he beat the Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru nominees for the post, but he is joining an organisation that is in serious trouble. As the shadow Minister referred to, one of the criteria was: “How are you going to deal with hostile criticism?” I wonder why the Electoral Commission had that as such an important point. It could be because it is not fit for purpose; it is an awful organisation.
What struck me as strange about this Humble Address was the length of time of the appointment. Nominated commissioners for the smaller parties are usually given only a two-year term. This motion calls for a three-year term. Nowhere in the report from the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission can I see why it changed it, and I notice that the Leader of the House did not explain why there was this change. It would seem to me, given the state of affairs in the Electoral Commission, that the term should have been shorter.
I am not seeking to block Mr Attwood’s appointment; I am just seeing whether the Leader of the House will consider withdrawing the motion and appointing Mr Attwood for a shorter period. I will explain why I think that is essential. I also hope that the Leader of the House will be able to answer some of the questions that I would have liked to pose to Mr Attwood personally, because the House needs to know his views on certain things to do with the Electoral Commission to see whether he is the right person to set its goals.
As the Leader of the House said, it is up to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission how it makes its appointment of an electoral commissioner. It could, before this stage, have recommended pre-appointment scrutiny, perhaps via the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and the questions I am posing now could have been posed then. I understand that if we were appointing the chairman of the Electoral Commission, the Committee may well have gone for a pre-appointment hearing, but we have not had one on this occasion, so I am going to have to press on with the questions I would have liked to ask.
The process outlined by the Leader of the House was exactly how it happened, and it is recorded in the sixth report of the Speaker’s Committee. But of course, that Committee meets in private, so we do not really know what the thinking is about the Electoral Commission. We do know, however, that the Speaker’s Committee has rejected the application for the existing chairman to have a new term of office, which I would have thought implied some criticism of the way the Commission has been run. I think that the situation is so grave, and what the Electoral Commission has done is so wicked, that I want to know what Mr Attwood’s views are on certain things.
I mentioned the fact that PACAC was looking into the looking into the Electoral Commission. In fact, it is a wide-ranging inquiry that started sometime last year, and there are eight areas that the Committee is looking into. The third area asks whether the remit of the Electoral Commission should be changed. The sixth covers public and political confidence in the impartiality and ability of the Electoral Commission, and the eighth asks what, if any, reform to the Electoral Commission should be considered. I would like to know whether those points were put to Mr Attwood and what his answers were.
I also think it is unfair to Mr Attwood to appoint him for three years when he does not know what he is actually going to be appointed to. I have no doubt that PACAC will recommend massive changes to, if not the abolition of, the Electoral Commission, yet he is being appointed for three years to something that could be completely different after only a few months. I hope that the Leader of the House can tell us what will happen if the Electoral Commission is abolished later this summer. I understand that the Committee is likely to report during the summer.
I suppose the question I would have most wanted to ask, and which I hope the Leader of the House can shed some light on, involves the wicked behaviour, political corruption and nastiness of how the Electoral Commission dealt with people who were involved in the details of the 2016 referendum. It has been widely reported, and it will not come as any surprise to the House, that the Electoral Commission tried to persecute people who were heads of the leave campaign—the directors of legal organisations, like myself. I was a director and founder of Grassroots Out, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove). There was widespread coverage of this, and perhaps the most well known and vicious attack was on Mr Arron Banks. In the end, the Electoral Commission had to fight a law case and lose. During that period, Mr Banks suffered malicious attacks in the media. His reputation was damaged: commercially, bank accounts were closed because of the ongoing investigation, and press leaks from the Commission occurred. This was done by the Electoral Commission, whose electoral commissioners are responsible for its actions, yet they used the power of the state, the money of the state, to persecute people who had headed up leave campaigns. I would like to ask Mr Attwood what his view is on that and what he would do in future to stop it happening again.
The area that has not got much coverage, and should have done, is the position of what was called the responsible person. Every leave campaign had a responsible person. I will just mention four of them. For Grassroots Out, it was Mr Richard Murphy; for Better for the Country, it was Liz Bilney; for BeLeave, it was Darren Grimes; and for Vote Leave, it was Alan Halsall. They were threatened with prosecution. Their names were rubbished. Their professional reputations were attacked. They had to endure the worst of malicious state treatment. The money that the Electoral Commission could use in legal fees was endless, yet the individuals had to fight back. They had no support. Quite often the Electoral Commission would demand lengthy explanations of things and give a very short timescale to reply, and it then got months and months to come back. It was disgraceful.
I joined the Conservative party when I was 15, so I have now been in local and national politics for more than 50 years. Often I have disagreed with things and often I have been upset about things—very upset, quite often, by things my own party did—but at no time did I think there was an organisation that was maliciously undermining the democratic process and attacking individuals because of their political views. Let us remember this: the responsible people are not politicians. They are not the Peter Bones or the Arron Bankses; they are just people who want to be involved in the political process and have knowledge of how to do campaign returns. Anyone who thinks the Electoral Commission treated those people fairly either has no idea of what happened or is not telling the truth.
Many of these people had their health severely damaged, their reputations tarnished, and their finances destroyed by having to raise thousands and thousands of pounds to fight the Electoral Commission. Every time, those people won, and not a single one of them was ever charged with anything. They were honest, decent people who were attacked by the state through the Electoral Commission. I want to know from Mr Attwood what he thinks about that, and what the other commissioners think, when we get a chance to debate this. It really was the most disgusting thing that I have ever seen a state organisation do.
We should be immensely proud of the referendum and the debate that surrounded it. It was the greatest exercise in democracy in this country. Whether you were on the leave side or the remain side, it was a great debate. From my point of view, as I said, I formed Grassroots Out. I did not know at the time that Richard Murphy, who was put there to look after the paperwork and everything relating to the requirements of the Electoral Commission, would be in such a terrible, terrible state because of the Electoral Commission—and the electoral commissioners did nothing to stop it.
I put on this rather garish GO tie to show the extent that we went to to comply with the rules. I doubt if anyone else in the country has a tie that has an imprint on the back of it with Richard Murphy’s name on it. That is because we were assiduous in making sure that we did everything right. We went to the Electoral Commission’s buildings when we registered—we went throughout the process. We filled in its pre-poll reports. We broke off campaigning to deal with some return or other it wanted at the last minute during the campaign. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby and I toured the UK, going up and down the country, talking to people and having three meetings a day, but we would break off, if necessary, to deal with the Electoral Commission.
When we finished the campaign, we did the return, which was not that complicated; we had spent a few hundred thousand pounds, which was way under any limit that we could possibly have broken. Being a chartered accountant, I looked at the paperwork we were submitting and it was fine, but we took the extra precaution of going to the Electoral Commission’s offices—I, Richard Murphy and my hon. Friend the Member for Corby—where we went through the return line by line before we submitted it. We said, “Is there anything wrong with this? If there is, we will go back and check it.” It was given the all clear, but months later we are dragged through months and months of an inquiry by a commission whose only reason to do it was that they hated leave campaigners. Instead of being at the heart of the democratic process, encouraging democracy, the commission did exactly the reverse. I would like to know from Mr Attwood how he is going to restore trust in democracy for any future referendum. I would bet a few pounds that none of the responsible people in the EU referendum would take the job on again—I could not advise anyone to do it. They do the work and do it properly, and do not get paid for it, but then the state organisations use all the power of the state; first, it does the regulation, then it does the inspection, and then it becomes the jury and judge and executioner. That cannot be right.
Mr Attwood, I want to know what you think about the reforms necessary to bring confidence back to the Electoral Commission. It may well be that it has to be abolished and that the culture in the Electoral Commission is so wicked, bad and unfair that it has to be scrapped and we have to start again. I fear that we are appointing a commissioner to carry on in the same old way, for a three-year term. It must be clear to everyone that there is not cross-party support for the Electoral Commission and it has lost the support of people. This is not party political; Conservatives, Labour members, United Kingdom Independence party members and people of no party all found themselves being persecuted by this organisation. It is a disgrace. It spends more than £15 million of our money each year. So if Mr Attwood was standing there now, I would say, “What are you going to do about all this?” It may well be that he could give me the answers and I would be able to support him, but this system does not stand the test of scrutiny. I hope the Leader of the House will be able to reassure me on these things when he answers, but I doubt it.
In 2016, we had a revolution. It was not a bloody one; it was a democratic revolution. It changed our relationship with Europe peacefully. More people voted in that referendum than ever before. The Electoral Commission should be helping and encouraging a repeat of that in the future. Its wicked persecution of responsible people after the referendum is a disgrace. I have nothing against Mr Attwood personally, but I think we are being put in a very difficult situation tonight; we are being asked to ask Her Majesty to appoint him as an electoral commissioner when we do not know the views.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I am glad that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) is endorsing the concept of future referendums. I look forward to a referendum in the not-too-distant future, which might bring out a democratic revolution of its own, paving the way for independence for Scotland. If he wants to compare notes on ties, he might be interested to know that on the back of mine, the label states “United States Capitol Historical Society”, and it bears inscriptions from the constitution of the United States, such as:
“We the people of the United States in Congress assembled”,
and so on.
Mr Attwood will always remember the day when he was appointed to the Electoral Commission, not just because of the interrogation from the hon. Gentleman, but because of the other historic events that are taking place—the triumph of democracy being affirmed in the United States. Here we are in our own quiet way enacting the democratic processes of this country and affirming Mr Attwood’s nomination to the body that oversees those electoral processes.
It is right to question the role and functions of the Electoral Commission, but it is perhaps not quite so appropriate to hijack a relatively technical debate that should be a formality. It has happened several times recently, and I think it does no favours to the candidates, who have been through a rigorous process. We ought to have faith in those processes. I certainly have faith in my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), who serves on the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. He assures me that all due process was carried out and the best candidate of those available was selected.
It is very clear from the report that Mr Attwood is highly qualified to take on the position. We wish his predecessor well and we wish him well as he takes up his office, much as we wish President Biden and Vice-President Harris well—I think I get to be the first person to call them that on the Floor of the House of Commons—in their positions.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) [V]
I, too, add my voice of congratulations to Alastair Ross for the time he spent as an electoral commissioner. I am disappointed he has not been able to serve out a full term and contribute fully to the role of the Electoral Commission, but I believe he moved on to other things.
I have a number of points that I would like to raise, and I must say I have some sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) this evening. The first point I would make is: why are we appointing someone to the Electoral Commission for a period of three years, when the Electoral Commission itself is being reviewed and could, as the hon. Member said, no longer exist by the end of this appointment’s duration? It would be much more satisfactory if the appointment had been made for a year to allow the Committee dealing with the matter in Parliament to address its affairs properly. The matter should be looked at properly. Will the Leader of the House examine that matter and consider, as was requested of him, withdrawing the motion tonight, given the public transparency and scrutiny of these appointments?
There has been absolutely no public transparency over these appointments. We are told this is the best candidate available. We are not sure whether various sifts happened in the process. There is no transparency whatever about the appointment, and that matter should be looked at. Transparency in public appointments is very important, especially when people’s elected careers and mandates can be questioned.
There are issues about whether this is a controversial appointment. This will be regarded in Northern Ireland as a controversial appointment, just because of the very nature of the person being appointed, who is a member of the nationalist Social Democratic and Labour party. They therefore have political baggage. That is unfair on the gentleman in question, but that is a fact of life and we all deal with that. I have political baggage, because I am from the Unionist tradition, and those matters will be examined.
We do not know, for example, whether the Committee examined the professional conduct of the individuals in question or whether it knows about the pretty basic dealings with the Law Society. Were those matters addressed, were they examined? I do not know, because there has been no transparency in this House and no opportunity for Members, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough said, to examine any of the points of this appointment. We are not able to examine or to hold ourselves, or indeed this House, to account. The issue of how this appointment was made should be looked at, and the Leader of the House has a duty to take this matter away and to consider some of the points that are being raised.
On a wider point, I believe that there is very little public confidence left in the Electoral Commission by many of the larger parties in this House, which is why the decision must be examined. The commission wrongly reported three individuals to the National Crime Agency after the 2016 referendum, and it largely made that recommendation after a Twitter campaign against those individuals. The hon. Member for Wellingborough quite rightly said that people were persecuted. Just think of it: a publicly funded body in the United Kingdom made recommendations to the National Crime Agency, which led to the persecution of people. It led to the persecution of Liz Bilney. It led to the persecution of Andrew Wigmore. It led to the persecution of Arron Banks. Careers were put on hold and businesses were questioned and challenged all because of a narcissistic, axe-grinding campaign against those who organised Vote Leave. The Electoral Commission cannot wash its hands of those career-wrecking decisions.
I understand that those individuals had to spend upwards of a quarter of a million pounds in defending themselves. They then ended up with an apology and were just dismissed and told to go away: “Oh, we got it wrong. We persecuted you. We wrecked your jobs. We wrecked your careers.” The hon. Member for Wellingborough mentioned that bank accounts were closed and put on hold. “Well, we did all that to you and your family, but we will just say sorry and let it go on from here.” That is not good enough.
It is right and proper that we should be able to hold to account those members being appointed. After one of the most important electoral decisions in the history of this nation—certainly in the history of modern times—are they content with how the Electoral Commission behaved and will they instigate change in how the Electoral Commission behaves? There has been no effort to scrutinise how the Electoral Commission member would avoid any of the political activity or any of the conflicts of interest that would ultimately arise as they have arisen in the past. If the Electoral Commission cannot be trusted on the biggest election in our recent history, in the referendum, this issue really does require scrutiny. I urge the Leader of the House to bring it back.
An allegation of dark money was made to the Electoral Commission in relation to my own party, because we dared to be part of a nationwide campaign. Because the allegations were made on Twitter and on social media, the Electoral Commission thought it had to run with them and bow to them and push for those investigations. It took months for those issues to be dismissed, when they should have been dismissed out of hand.
I must say that the way that this commission is structured allows for the fuelling of these attacks on people. It has taken months for it to investigate people—to be a judge, a jury and an executioner itself. Effectively, it acts with the same carte blanche that the Star Chamber would have used in years gone by. All of this needs to be reformed. If we are in the process of considering these matters of reform, why are we in the process of appointing people who do not have the full confidence of the House, not in themselves but in terms of how the process of appointment is actually taking place? We need to encourage public confidence in this matter, not encourage public concern, and I do fear that tonight’s motion drives public concern.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I apologise that the video link went down, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he came through loud and clear.
Mr Rees-Mogg
This is an important debate, but it has wandered slightly, though in a very carefully phrased way within the orders of the House, beyond the appointment of Mr Attwood.
May I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) for his support and the support of the official Opposition, and the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) for the support of the Scottish National party, for which I am grateful? There is one point I would pick up on with the hon. Gentleman, and it is not the label one has on one’s tie. It is that, in this process, the House is the final arbiter. This is part of the process, and we should never view this part of the process as being a mere rubber stamp. However good the earlier stages, when something comes to the House, we are free to decide in any direction, but I am grateful for his support.
There are really three points that have come up in this debate, the first two of which are not particularly controversial. The first is the question of the appointment of Mr Attwood, which seems to be accepted. It seems to be accepted that he is qualified. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) mentioned his support for the SDLP, but this is one of the four nominated members who do have party political affiliations. That is therefore perfectly reasonable within the structure of the Electoral Commission, although I obviously understand the sensitivities in Ulster over any political affiliations. It is broadly accepted that he is qualified, that he is a suitable person and that sending an Humble Address to Her Majesty in his name or on his behalf is reasonable.
The second point, which was perhaps slightly more contentious but not overwhelmingly so, was the question of whether this should be done now, or whether I should withdraw the motion and come back at a later stage. The problem with this is that it elides the first point and the third point, which I will come on to. The reason for doing it now is that Mr Attwood is accepted to be suitable, not because of questions on the Electoral Commission, which I shall turn to briefly.
There is the debate on why this appointment is for a three-year rather than a two-year term. The simple fact is that the Speaker’s Committee took the view that the Electoral Commission would benefit from the commissioner spending longer in post. That was the decision it came to and put forward in its report and, the amendment not being selected, that is what we have the ability to vote on this afternoon. I think it reasonable to put some confidence in the Speaker’s Committee, which represents all views of the House.
However, thirdly, the real issue of debate today is not the suitability of Mr Attwood and this question of an Humble Address, but the Electoral Commission itself and its treatment of individuals. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) mentioned that Richard Murphy had difficulty with the Electoral Commission. I have known Richard Murphy for 20 years, and he is the most brilliant, honest, sensible man one could think of and a formidable political campaigner. He was the area agent when I first stood for Parliament in England—when I stood in The Wrekin in 2001—and, goodness, he is an impressive and honest man. If even somebody like Richard finds the Electoral Commission is trying to hang weights round his neck, then that is something which of course is a matter of concern, and we know that the issue with Darren Grimes was settled in Darren Grimes’s favour.
I think it is not unjustifiable to raise these concerns, but that is not the issue for tonight’s vote. It is of course important that the Electoral Commission should be impartial in its judgments. It is of course crucial that people should have confidence in it when it is involved in a referendum—whether that be a referendum as in 2014, which we know settled things for a generation, or one in 2016, which settled our relationship with the European Union. If people do not have confidence in the Electoral Commission to be fair, regardless of which side of the debate they are on, then it is a risk for our democracy. So it is important that the Electoral Commission should hear this debate and should respond to the important points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough, because that confidence is of fundamental importance.
However, I am glad to say that this House, in its wisdom, has an answer. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee—whose distinguished Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), is sitting behind me—is carrying out an examination into the Electoral Commission, which will be able to go through all the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and the hon. Member for North Antrim, consider them carefully and make recommendations. That is very important. We see in all elections how important confidence in the system is, and when confidence is undermined, whether rightly or wrongly, that is a troubling state for democracy to be in. I therefore urge the PACAC to put its shoulder to the wheel, put grease on its elbow and ensure that its report comes forward, to help us deliberate in future. In the meantime, I commend this motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Alexander Attwood as an Electoral Commissioner with effect from 1 February 2021 for the period ending on 31 January 2024.
House of Commons Commission (External Members)
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
I beg to move,
That the appointment of Jane McCall to the House of Commons Commission be extended to 30 April 2021, in pursuance of section 1(2B) of the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, as amended.
The motion proposes the extension of Jane McCall’s membership of the House of Commons Commission until 30 April 2021. I will keep my remarks particularly short, but I think it is important that the House has the opportunity to debate these matters if it wishes. It should be noted that this is a short, three-month extension to Ms McCall’s term, to ensure that the Commission has enough time to carry out the recruitment process for her successor, while the Commission faces a particularly challenging time overseeing the House Service’s response to the pandemic.
Jane has served the Commission well in her time as a member, and I am sure that she will continue to do so if this extension is approved. I wish to place on record my continued thanks to her for her work and for the work of all members of the House of Commons Commission. I hope the House will support this extension, and I wish Ms McCall every success in her continuing role on the Commission.
Question put and agreed to.
Business without Debate
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Deputy Speaker’s Statement
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I would like to make a short statement about second and additional speeches during half-hour Adjournment debates which reflects the position of Mr Speaker and all the Deputy Speakers.
“Erskine May” makes it clear that the half-hour Adjournment debate is a personal debate between the Member who secured the debate and the Minister who is to reply. We would deprecate any attempt to transform the end-of-day Adjournment into a general debate. It is important that the Minister has time to engage with the issue and reply. Although other Members may intervene or make brief speeches with the agreement of the Member who secured the debate and the Minister, it is important to state that such agreement can be very reasonably withheld. The Member in charge and the Minister should not feel in any way obliged to agree. It is also important that, where both the Member whose debate it is and the Minister agree, the Chair must be notified in advance and in good time.
Separately, I should also inform the House that Mr Speaker has modified the scheme for virtual participation to provide that, where virtual participation is not required for the Member who secured the debate or the Minister replying, it will not be made available for another Member to give a second or additional speech.
Building Safety Fund
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Stephen, you are on mute. We cannot hear you. We will labour a little bit longer with you, do not worry, because you are the last act. Stephen, what we will do, if everybody is happy, is suspend for a short time while our comms people talk to you. If we can correct the gremlins, we will. If we cannot, I am afraid we will have to seek to have you another time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. It is quite clear that the gremlins have defeated us on this particular occasion. It is incredibly rare. We know that this is a very important subject matter and we will endeavour to ensure that Mr Morgan is able to raise his subject again in the very, very near future.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
(3 years, 3 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) | Marcus Jones |
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) | Chris Loder |
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
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) | Marcus Jones |
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
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) | Marcus Jones |
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) | Ben Lake |
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD) | Ben Lake |
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) | Marcus Jones |
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) | Ben Lake |
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) | Marcus Jones |
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
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) | Marcus Jones |
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) | Ben Lake |
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
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) | Marcus Jones |
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
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) | Marcus Jones |
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
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) | Marcus Jones |
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind) | Marcus Jones |
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Sir Alan Campbell (Ogmore) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) | Ben Lake |
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) | Ben Lake |
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) | Marcus Jones |
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
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) | Marcus Jones |
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
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) | Marcus Jones |
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
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) | Marcus Jones |
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
James Heappey (Wells) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Anthony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) | Ben Lake |
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) | Marcus Jones |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
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) | Marcus Jones |
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
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) | Marcus Jones |
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) | Ben Lake |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
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) | Marcus Jones |
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
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) | Marcus Jones |
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
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) | Marcus Jones |
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
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) | Marcus Jones |
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) | Marcus Jones |
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
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) | Marcus Jones |
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
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) | Marcus Jones |
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Patrick Grady |
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) | Ben Lake |
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) | Chris Loder |
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
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) | Marcus Jones |
Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) | Ben Lake |
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
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) | Marcus Jones |
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
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) | Marcus Jones |
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
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) | Marcus Jones |
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
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) | Marcus Jones |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
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) | Marcus Jones |
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) | Ben Lake |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
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) | Marcus Jones |
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) | Marcus Jones |
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
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) | Marcus Jones |
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) | Marcus Jones |
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
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) | Marcus Jones |
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
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) | Marcus Jones |
John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) | Ben Lake |
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) | Rachel Hopkins |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con) | Marcus Jones |
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Draft West Yorkshire Combined Authority (Election of Mayor and Functions) Order 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I would like to remind hon. Members to observe social distancing and sit only in places that are clearly marked. Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if Members sent their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft West Yorkshire Combined Authority (Election of Mayor and Functions) Order 2021.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. Laid before the House on 17 December 2020, the draft order, if approved and made, will implement the devolution deal agreed between the Government and the West Yorkshire Combined Authority announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget on 11 March 2020. Therefore, the order will establish the office of Mayor of West Yorkshire, with the first election taking place on 6 May 2021. The Mayor will be chair of the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, which comprises the constituent councils of Bradford, Calderdale, Kirklees, Leeds and Wakefield. The order transfers police and crime commissioner functions for West Yorkshire to the combined authority, to be exercised by the Mayor. In addition to the PCC functions, the order confers significant other powers on the Mayor and combined authority, as envisaged in the devolution deal, which relate to education and skills, regeneration, a mayoral development corporation and transport. It also amends certain of the combined authority’s governance arrangements in order to reflect those powers and the role of the Mayor.
Most importantly, the making of the order opens a way to providing the very considerable funding for this area, as set out in the deal. That includes £38 million of annual investment funding for West Yorkshire for the next 30 years, comprising in total more than £1.1 billion, to be invested by West Yorkshire to drive—
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
Was the money mentioned by my hon. Friend the Minister conditional on acceptance of this mayoral model, and might it not be considered somewhat as a municipal bribe?
Luke Hall
The transport funding set out in the Budget previously was conditional on expansion of the mayoral combined authority. I think it is right to say that all parties who have entered into this deal did so willingly and in good faith and have made positive arguments for the extra accountability and benefits that it will bring to the region. The £1.1 billion can be invested in tackling the priorities of West Yorkshire. It includes £317 million from the transforming cities fund, with flexibilities on spend, as well as control of the annual adult education budget.
All this will help the Mayor and local leaders to drive the area’s economic and social recovery from the pandemic. At this point, I place on record my thanks to all the local government leaders, councillors and officers in West Yorkshire for their hard work, not just in securing and agreeing the details of this deal, but in their response to the pandemic, which has been diligent and remarkable.
The order will be made, if Parliament approves, under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, as amended by the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016. As required by that legislation, we have laid, along with this order, an S105B report, which provides details about the public authority functions that we are devolving to the combined authority, some of which will be exercisable by the Mayor.
The statutory origin of the order is in a governance review and scheme adopted in April 2020 by the combined authority, with its five constituent councils, in accordance with the requirement of the 2009 Act. The scheme proposed additional functions to be conferred on the combined authority, as envisaged in the devolution deal, specifying which would be exercised by the Mayor and certain amendments to governance arrangements.
As provided for by the 2009 Act, the combined authority and the councils consulted on the proposals in their scheme, promoting the consultation through regional and local media, social media and posters at public buildings. Responses were accepted through the combined authority website, as well as email, letter and a hard copy form. The consultation ran from 25 May to 20 July 2020, and in total 4,413 people responded to the consultation through a variety of platforms. As statute requires, the combined authority provided the Secretary of State with a summary of the responses to the consultation, on 14 September, and the results show that the proposals are strongly supported by the public and stakeholders.
Mr Wragg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he is being very generous and is probably somewhat taken aback by my secondment to this Committee this morning. I thank him for his forbearance. In the summary of responses, did he receive a single positive response from a Conservative Member of Parliament?
Luke Hall
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We have had extensive engagement with Members of Parliament in West Yorkshire throughout the process and have met on numerous occasions. Of the eight questions posed in the consultation, all received clear majority support in the consultation responses that have been received. In laying this draft order before Parliament, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the statutory tests in the 2009 Act are met—that no further consultation is necessary and that conferring the proposed powers would likely improve the exercise of statutory functions in the combined authority area—and are appropriate, having regard to the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities and to secure effective local government. Where the functions are local authority functions, they can be appropriately exercised by the combined authority. Furthermore, as required by statute, the combined authority and the five constituent councils consented to the making of this order.
If the draft order is approved, it will give effect to the provisions of the devolution deal. PCC functions will be transferred. The order is clear that the Mayor’s role as the holder of PCC functions is carved out, and that decisions around police property, rights and liabilities are the Mayor’s responsibility, and there remains a distinct precept. All money relating to policing must be paid into and out of the police fund, and that money can be spent only on policing and matters related to the Mayor’s PCC functions.
A new police and crime panel is to be created, which will exercise broadly the same functions as the police and crime panel under the PCC model. The financial year of the PCC and chief constable for West Yorkshire is to be extended from 31 March to 9 May 2021 to rationalise accounting processes and avoid preparing additional accounts for the one-month interim period. Any receipts will be paid to the police fund to ensure that police funding is protected, and a new police and crime panel is to be created to exercise the same functions as those under the PCC model.
To improve the supply and quality of housing to facilitate the regeneration of West Yorkshire, the combined authority will be conferred regeneration powers and land acquisition and disposal powers. Those will be exercised concurrently with Homes England, enabling the combined authority, working closely with Homes England, to promote regeneration.
The compulsory purchase of land will be a mayoral function, and any decisions will require consent from the West Yorkshire combined authority member whose local government area contains any parts of the proposed land. The order also includes constitutional provisions reflecting the powers conferred and the role of the Mayor. There is provision regarding voting arrangements, so that any decision of the combined authority about its new powers conferred through this order must include the Mayor and the majority of members in favour of that decision. The order also provides for the establishment of an independent remuneration panel to recommend the allowances of the Mayor and deputy Mayor.
This order, which is supported locally, is a significant step forward for West Yorkshire’s businesses and communities. It is key to the city region’s economic recovery, and I commend it to the Committee.
The Chair
Members will be delighted to know that the debate can last until five minutes to 11. I call Steve Reed.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Hollobone; I might not avail myself of all the time that you have generously allocated to us.
I am grateful for the Minister’s comments. I suspect this will not be the most ferociously divisive and controversial matter to come before us in current times. Labour Members support the creation of the combined authority and Mayor for West Yorkshire. In fact, we would like to see the Government go further and faster. The pandemic has taught us many things, and one of them is about the limitations of over-centralisation and the benefits of opening up power more widely across the country. In that context, the leader of the Labour party is establishing a constitutional commission, which I hope will be able to work across parties, and certainly with civil society and the public, to try to find more ways to open up power and decision making to people across all parts of the United Kingdom and into every community that makes up our country.
I am not going to challenge the Minister on the proposals but I have a few questions to ask, in the spirit of looking for the Government to go further and faster. Will the combined authority and the Mayor of West Yorkshire play a role in decisions about the allocation of funds through the levelling-up fund and the UK shared prosperity fund? Are the Government considering the devolution of further powers to the combined authority or, indeed, to Mayors and combined authorities in other parts of the country, as part of the deepening of devolution? There have been some delays in the publication of the devolution White Paper. Can the Minister tell us yet when we might expect to see that White Paper and be able to engage in the debate that will follow about the most appropriate way to move forward with a devolution agenda, particularly as we build back after the pandemic?
Mr Wragg
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Hollobone, on this delegated legislation Committee and to witness the forensic scrutiny to which Her Majesty’s Government are subjected on these occasions. It is truly inspiring.
I want, if I may, to draw on the remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister, who gave a slightly curtailed exposition of the measure before us today. I speak with a degree of experience and, noting the preponderance of Whips on the Committee, I am reminded the occasion when, as a junior Member—I still am, compared with many, although I may not sound it at times—I was subjected to a threat, if I can call it that; perhaps I can say “a friendly threat”. It was made by a then member of the Government Whips Office, when, for mildly questioning the Government’s devolution policy at the time, particularly with respect to Greater Manchester, I was threatened with “serious consequences”.
When I inquired of that member of the Government Whips Office why my impertinence would meet with such a reaction, he was unable to elaborate on the nature of those serious consequences. However, I imagine one of the reasons why I am in my place today—and, if I may be so bold, perhaps why you are in yours, Mr Hollobone, and the Minister and the Whips are in theirs—is that I have perhaps found out those particular serious consequences after all, because it hindered my progression up the greasy pole. However, that does not particularly bother me.
My reason for wanting to speak briefly about the draft order is that I think the Government are at risk of persisting with what is frankly an Osborne hangover. A number of us felt that we had dismissed the legacy of the ancien régime in our party, but we seem to be making exactly the same mistakes again. I draw to the Committee’s attention the recent issues in Greater Manchester, in particular the combination of the police and crime commissioner role with that of the Mayor, and the complete lack of accountability for what has been a tragedy for 80,000 victims of crime who were unable to register those crimes.
I mention that because, as we amalgamate and create new structures, we are in danger of forgetting what powers of scrutiny there may be. A cursory glance at the draft order shows that the Mayor has the ability to appoint deputies who are themselves entirely unaccountable to the electorate.
I also note my hon. Friend the Minister’s brief mention of constitutional matters, particularly the voting arrangements. I thought that the Conservative party was the party of first past the post. Yet, again, on this occasion we are creating an elected office with a frankly rather mixed system, which does not reflect the advantages of first past the post.
Recently, or not so recently now—in 2019—we were able to secure a number of seats in the north of England that we, as the Conservative party, have not held for many years. Yet with the constant march of creating these bodies, I fear we are at risk of once again subjecting areas to the rule of socialists—areas that we have hitherto sought to liberate from that burden.
Luke Hall
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) and the hon. Member for Croydon North for their remarks, and the Committee for its consideration today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove raised his concerns and objections to the deal. I think it presents not a serious threat, but rather a serious opportunity for West Yorkshire, with the extra funding and investment that we are putting into this deal. It will allow regeneration opportunities to open up and bring investment into a community that has supported the deal through individual councils. This is a positive step forward for West Yorkshire, which is why it has received support from local leaders.
My hon. Friend also talked about devolving powers locally. We think that it is the right course of action. Devolving power is the best mechanism to secure the most possible local support and involvement in decision making, which we think is a positive step forward.
My hon. Friend also referenced the deputy Mayor and the lack of accountability. The deputy Mayor is appointed by the Mayor, and is accountable directly to the public through the Mayor themselves, so we think that is a positive step forward. It is supported widely locally. All the questions that were raised were broadly supported by the responses received during the consultation process.
The hon. Member for Croydon North asked a number of questions. I am grateful for his and his party’s support on this matter. He asked questions about the Mayor’s role in the levelling-up fund and the UK shared prosperity fund, and he is right to do so. We will make sure that those questions are answered in the new prospectus, when it is published shortly. I note his questions and we will make sure that they are answered through the proper channel.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the devolution of further powers as part of this process. It is right that the planning powers were not committed as part of this deal, and we will look to have those conversations once the wider planning reforms are agreed. We will take those conversations forward with the Mayor, once they are elected. The hon. Gentleman also made some general comments about the local response to the pandemic, and the amazing work of mayors, councillors and local administrations around the country. I join him in that.
I believe that this order and the deal that it implements will make a significant contribution to the future of West Yorkshire. It brings power closer to communities, and it will play an important part in the economic recovery and the response to the pandemic. I commend the order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Official Controls (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Amendment) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2020
Draft Plant Health (Amendment) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Colleagues, will you make sure that you let Hansard have a copy of your speech at the end of proceedings?
I will now call the Minister to move the motion and to speak to both statutory instruments. At the end of the debate, I will put the Question on the first motion and then ask the Minister to move the second motion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Official Controls (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Amendment) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1631).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Plant Health (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Victoria Prentis
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David.
The regulations and the draft regulations were laid before this House on 22 December and 9 December last year, respectively.
The regulations complete the suite of European Union exit amendments set out in the Official Controls (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were debated unopposed in the House on 30 November 2020, and came into force shortly before midnight on 31 December. As with the first SI, the second one—the regulations before us —amends EU retained regulations governing official controls on imports to Great Britain of animals and animal products, and plants and plant products, including food and other imports relevant to the agrifood chain, collectively known as sanitary and phytosanitary or SPS checks.
The EU regulatory structure being retained and made operable by the amendments is extensive and complex. Owing to the intricacy of the amendments required, we took the decision to divide the necessary legislation into two instruments. That is why we are debating this second one today. The first focused on operability amendments to the main body of EU official controls regulations. This one makes similar operability amendments to more than 30 separate tertiary regulations, covering procedural aspects of the official controls regime, including regulation of model certificates, transits and transhipments, operation of border control posts and specific requirements for certain categories of animal and plant import control. The SI ensures that we can continue to deliver robust, effective controls and checks on all food, animal and plant imports.
We have now started to phase in border controls on imports from the European economic area. That prioritises flow at the border and gives business and industry longer to prepare for the full controls regime. It is a temporary, pragmatic step to support international trade and mitigate disruption, made necessary partly by the impact of the pandemic. From July this year, we will have controls in place for all imports of EU SPS goods.
Moving on, the draft plant health regulations will help us to achieve unfettered market access for Northern Irish businesses moving goods into Great Britain, which is a key commitment of the Northern Ireland protocol and of the UK internal market. The draft regulations specify the mechanism to allow regulated plants and plant materials to move from Northern Ireland into Great Britain. The instrument will not introduce any policy changes, and the devolved Administrations have given their consent.
The draft regulations will protect biosecurity and support trade by amending retained EU law to allow movements of qualifying goods into Great Britain under an EU plant passport. For Northern Irish businesses trading with Great Britain, nothing will change compared with the situation at the end of last year. It makes amendments to the format of UK plant passports, to allow identification of qualifying goods on the GB market, which should ensure traceability in the event of a biosecurity issues arising.
Once in Great Britain, an EU plant passport can continue to accompany the qualifying goods—it will look simply like a label. Authorised operators will also have the option to replace the EU plant passport with a UK plant passport, should they, for example, want to split a consignment where each trade unit is not already covered by an individual plant passport.
The draft regulations also provide for goods to be assessed against GB plant health standards where those differ from those of the EU, and there is an option for the authorised operator to issue a UK plant passport where goods are assessed as meeting GB plant health requirements. Under the terms of the protocol, Northern Ireland will maintain alignment with the EU plant health regime rather than that of Great Britain. Finally, the regulations make consequential amendments to domestic legislation.
The regulations and draft regulations will ensure that legislation to maintain UK biosecurity will continue to function in Great Britain and that we shall continue to deliver an effective imports system that guarantees our high standards of food and animal safety, while ensuring frictionless trading and movements.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve with you in the Chair, Sir David. It brings back happy memories of considering the Bill that became the Agriculture Act 2020. Of course, we are returning to the ongoing dialogue about the changes to checks and controls on food and plant movements that we were enjoying last year.
I note that the first of the statutory instruments has a similar title—with the helpful addition of a bracketed No. 2 for clarification—to the one that we discussed at the end of November, to which the Minister has made reference. On that occasion our exchanges were brief, and lasted no more than 10 minutes. Once again I assure the Minister that the Opposition will not oppose the measures, because we want the systems to work. However, I cannot promise to be quite so brief today.
The fact that we are not opposing the measures and that once again the discussion is likely to be relatively short raises the question of why Members have been brought to London, which in my view puts staff and Members at risk. Ministers can do Zoom calls with 250 participants. I am not sure whether they always do them very well, although perhaps I am being unkind. However, I wonder why on earth seven or eight of us must be physically in this room at a time of maximum danger. Perhaps that point could be relayed to the authorities that make such decisions. I understand that we shall be doing the same on Monday.
Having got those matters off my chest, I will turn to the statutory instruments. As the Minister said, the issues are important and complicated, with a panoply of controls being transposed into UK law. Now we are in the possibly more advantageous position of having some experience of how things are going. Sadly, I am afraid that we see on a daily basis that the promises about many of the systems—that they would be ready and working—were just that: promises. The reality has been rather different, and the extraordinary assertion by the Prime Minister that there were to be no non-tariff barriers has been shown to be completely inaccurate, as we said at the time.
In the explanatory memorandum to the first of the statutory instruments, on official controls, we begin to get an explanation of what was happening in December as the UK sought essential third-country status. I remember questioning the Minister at the time, and as always she was helpful, if discreet. Paragraphs 7.4 and 7.5 explain the time constraints and the fact that effectively a two-stage process was needed, with more than 30 regulations intended for inclusion in the first statutory instrument being held over. As is outlined in paragraph 7.6, the regulations were implemented first, and are now being debated. So much for taking back control.
My first question is relatively simple. If there was to be a two-stage process, why were we not told that in November? I have no recollection of that being explained. Clearly the Government knew what they were doing, but why could not the British public or, indeed, Parliament, be trusted with the information about what was going on, given that it has such a direct impact on us? Why the secrecy? Of course, it raises the question of what we are not being told now.
It is always interesting to scrutinise statutory instruments when they have already been discussed in the other place. Not only does one get to hear the Government speech twice, which is of course a great pleasure, but the Minister in the other place is particularly diligent and exhaustive in his replies, and his inquisitors are often highly experienced former occupants of the role. I therefore watched yesterday’s exchanges closely and noted that there were so many pressing questions from the noble Lords that the Minister promised to answer in what he described as a “substantial letter”. Today, officials have had a further day to mull over some of the points that were raised, and I hope that we can have some more direct answers immediately.
Lord Rooker as ever asked incisive questions on reference laboratories, and others, including my colleague the shadow Minister, Baroness Hayman, joined him in pressing on that issue. The answer seemed to me to be somewhat vague, so I ask directly again about the reintroduction of European Union reference laboratories into this instrument. DEFRA’s answer to the questions—some of which were posed by Friends of the Earth in response to the points raised by the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee—implies we do not currently have a reference laboratory that uses the standard operating procedures. Could the Minister elaborate on that? In my view, saying that the intention is that it will be done does not seem good enough.
We also learned about the staged implementation of measures, with pre-notification requirements from April and full controls from July. Yet, when responding to Baroness Hayman, the Minister told of 29 applications to build new border control posts, and 14 in Scotland—applications to build. Could the Minister tell us how long will that take? Will they be in place and operating in 24 weeks’ time? On staffing, as Lord Rooker asked, how many of the staff needed for April will be in place? It is mid-January now. They need to be recruited and trained.
When it comes to the computer systems, as a former IT person myself, I rather enjoyed the naive optimism of the Minister, as he gamely admitted computers were not really his thing and that systems were “under development”—for July! In my experience, I do not think that is likely. We have already seen the myriad problems being faced by businesses with systems that do not work. It looks as if it is going to get a whole lot worse yet. I ask the Minister to explain to us today, or maybe add to her colleague’s “substantial letter”, which systems are under development and what stage that development has reached.
Let me pick up some of the further points raised by Friends of the Earth. I am grateful for its detailed reading of these instruments, which helpfully highlight the reduction in oversight and transparency of import conditions under regulation 2 of the lead SI. I have complained to the Minister before about the negative SI procedure. I gently remind her that the relaxation of competition rules in the grocery sector, which were prayed against last summer, have still not been heard. Indeed, in that time they have lapsed, so competition was restored, and then they were relaxed again through, I imagine, a further negative instrument. Yet there has been no discussion and no scrutiny. I have no objection to prompt action, but I do object to a lack of transparency.
I must conclude that the system does not work, and Friends of the Earth is right to question the cumulative potential impact. The Minister will be aware that following the votes on the Trade Bill last night, critics are pointing to examples where Government can now make changes, lowering standards out of sight. I am afraid that we are now seeing many examples of exactly that happening.
The answer to Friends of the Earth’s questions includes the extraordinary assertion by DEFRA that the exercise of the power referenced by one of the questions was,
“unlikely to be sufficiently serious or contentious to justify using the affirmative resolution procedure”.
Of course, DEFRA would say that, but it is not for Government to decide whether their actions are contentious; that is for Parliament.
Could the Minister clarify the meaning of regulation 13 and the minimum specific requirements for vets? I really do not like the sound of it. It is pretty clear that we do not have enough vets. Does this give Ministers the powers to solve the problem by reducing the veterinary oversight? I hope not, but hidden in the labyrinthine details of these regulations are too many opportunities for what many would see as deregulation by stealth.
Friends of the Earth also queries the pest risk emergency lists. The answer given was again, essentially, “We have an expert group, the UK Plant Health Risk Group, so trust us.” Well, we broadly do, but yet again, it looks to me that there is again a reduction in transparency. I hope the Minister can persuade me that I am wrong.
Let me move to the draft regulations on plant health. Again, we will not oppose it, because we want the system to work, and we are reassured that the Horticultural Trades Association is happy with this. It tells me:
“The key SI for us is the Plant Health Regulation which sets out the requirement for Qualifying Northern Ireland Goods to enter GB under an EU Plant Passport and sets out how these EU Plant Passported goods should be treated once in GB. However, a key point we would make here is that this SI exempts goods traveling from within the EU plant health area traveling NI to GB, whereas the EU has not made the same exemptions for goods traveling from GB to NI.”
This is, of course, a recurrent theme. Could the Minister update us on any representations being made, and whether she thinks this is an advantageous arrangement for us? I suspect, like me, she does not.
The Horticultural Trades Association has also helpfully developed a seven-point plan to improve the phytosanitary and border control process with a series of detailed recommendations around developing better relationships and protocols, simplifying data entry and so on, of which I am sure the Minister is aware. I would welcome an update on progress on those points.
I will conclude by giving a practical example of why all this matters so much. It is a case passed to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) involving a harrowing account from a business located in Hampshire. The company says—I am paraphrasing—that a system that worked perfectly well for over 20 years is now in chaos. It details extra costs of between £130 and £150 for inspection of each consignment coming from Europe, which it estimates will add an extra £30,000 per annum to its costs. The business says there are only two inspectors in northern Holland to check thousands of consignments, leading to huge delays. According to the company, “it’s insanity.”
Particularly relevant to this SI is what the company says about the UK plant passport, which I will quote in full:
“It is now required for plants to have the U.K. plant passport printed or displayed on them either on the pot or on the label or sleeve. What that means is that a sticker has to be attached to each item/carton/case with this new U.K. plant passport printed on it. So for imported food for the U.K. the EU growers EU plant passport is no longer enough (which has been perfectly acceptable for 40 years) now the U.K. plant passport has to be added. Each U.K. importer has a different U.K. plant passport number so it is impossible to have a generic or multi user solution. The extra work and cost involved in printing and attaching this U.K. plant passport is quite simply astonishing. Typically a truckload with plants can contain in excess of 20,000 plants. That is 20,000 stickers that need to be attached to each and every plant for just 1 truckload. It’s total madness!! I currently have 150 truckloads coming to UK. That is roughly 500,000 plants. All need to have new labels stuck on them!!”
Discussions of statutory instruments often seem dry, but they have an impact on the real world—on our constituents. It might be that there have been some misunderstandings here, and I hope the Minister or her officials can provide clarification. I will pass the details of this case to the Minister in the hope that some help can be offered. In the experience of those who need them, the systems currently in place are quite clearly not working.
The Prime Minister initially said there were no non-tariff barriers, but now the line is that there are “teething problems”. Frankly, they are not teething problems, but structural problems. I understand the Minister said as much during a Westminster Forum event this morning, although I would be grateful if she told me I am wrong about that. The first step in tackling a problem is to recognise and understand it, and not deny it. These are difficult issues that are not going away, and we need to resolve them quickly.
Victoria Prentis
I will, as ever, try to answer all of the hon. Gentleman’s questions. If I miss one, it is inadvertent. I know that the Lords Minister will be writing a substantial letter, so I will ensure that reaches the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that my noble Friend Lord Gardiner of Kimble will pick up on some of the points that have been made in both Houses in the last two days.
On the general point, I will not get involved in the discussion about whether we should be here, but I heard what the hon. Gentleman said to you, Sir David. Negative SIs are published and are fully available for parliamentary scrutiny and debate, so I will not get involved in that debate either.
On why this SI was not debated at the time of the first official controls instrument, we laid that at the start of November and debated and published it by mid-December, because that was a condition of the Commission for us to be listed as a third country, which was critical for the movement of some goods that are imported into the UK. Given the complexity of the legislative amendments made to the whole body of retained EU legislation, we decided to deliver the amendments through two separate statutory instruments. There was no secrecy or peculiarity about that; it was merely a practical step and it is why we are here today. Both SIs were laid before the House in December—one on 9 December, and the other on 22 December—so they have been available to be scrutinised openly. That was what they were there for and the explanatory note makes that clear, so I do not think there has been any secrecy about the position.
I have read the Friends of the Earth queries, which are technical. The Minister in the other place made it clear that they required a detailed response, so I will leave those for the substantive letter from the Department. On border control posts and infrastructure, I have not read the Lords debate, but I suspect the other place was told that DEFRA had approved expressions of interests for 29 new BCPs from providers in England and Wales. The Animal and Plant Health Agency tells us that the building is progressing and it is confident that they can be ready by July. Two further applications are under consideration and further expressions of interest are expected in Scotland. That work is under way, and the teams working on it are hopeful—indeed, they expect—that it will be completed in time.
DEFRA is working with port health authorities, APHA and the Food Standards Agency to recruit and train the additional staff required for each stage of the import regime. We have recruited 176 plant health and seed inspectors who are in post now, and we expect their number to increase to up to 300 by July. For animals and animal products, we expect to employ 200 inspectors by April and a further 80 by July, together with 360 administrative staff. Recruitment has been ongoing since at least November and training is happening. A great deal of work is being done to get ready for our sensible, pragmatic and phased approach to bringing in the border checks. The EU reference laboratories are not covered in the official controls regulations, but I will write separately to the hon. Gentleman on that matter.
Continuing to try answer the questions in order, we are confident that we have enough trained vets. We made surge capacity of vets available over this period but not much has been used, so there is still spare surge capacity. I would never say that the situation is not challenging for exporters; I know it is, but we are confident that there is enough capacity at the moment and surge capacity is there if individuals need it.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to refer specific cases to me and my officials, who are working hand in hand to support companies that are trying to export. We will willingly take them up. I also encourage anybody trying to export to make full use of our training programmes, webinars and individual support. There is a great deal of support to get businesses ready for the new checks.
Daniel Zeichner
That was not quite the question I was asking, although we are all concerned about the availability of vets. The suggestion from Friends of the Earth is that within these changes Minsters may have given themselves the ability to reduce veterinary oversight, which is another way of dealing with the problem but not one that many would be happy with.
Victoria Prentis
Certainly, the intention behind the statutory instruments is to have a robust system in place for protecting our biosecurity. I remember debating last year with the hon. Gentleman how to tailor our approach so that biosecurity in this country could be done better than over an entire continent. I will make sure that the my noble Friend Lord Gardiner answers the point made by Friends of the Earth, because I am not absolutely certain what point it is worried about, but I will look into it and make sure that the hon. Gentleman is copied into that letter.
Even though the second SI is clearly about NI to GB, a question was posed about what progress has been made on equivalence, and although that issue is not specifically in scope, I think it is only fair that I answer it briefly. If I may summarise, the question is what progress has been made in UK-EU equivalence negotiations. DEFRA submitted applications for third-country equivalence on a number of occasions, as I outlined many times last year. In late December, the EU formally confirmed that it would grant equivalence for seed and other propagating material and would lift prohibitions on ware potatoes, for example. The EU has published an equivalence decision for fruit and vegetable propagating material, which also included lifting the prohibition on ware potatoes, and we are currently waiting for it to reach a Council decision on forest reproductive material and agricultural seed. We are pushing the EU very hard for a timeline for that decision. We continue to push on a regular basis for the lifting of the prohibition, and we are pursuing an application under article 44 of the plant health regulation on the equivalence of plant health measures generally.
I hope that that deals with the substance of the questions, and I commend these two instruments to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT PLANT HEALTH (AMENDMENT) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2020
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Plant Health (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.—(Victoria Prentis.)
Operation of Air Services (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Operation of Air Services (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 1632).
These regulations are made under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the instrument applies to the United Kingdom. The regulations ensure that EU regulation 1008/2008 on common rules for the operation of air services continues to function correctly in UK law after the transition period. They do so by amending the Operation of Air Services (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018. The need for today’s SI has arisen because the EU amended regulation 1008/2008 after the 2018 regulations were made.
In May last year, EU regulation 2020/696 inserted provisions into regulation 1008/2008 to address problems caused by the slump in air passengers resulting from the covid-19 pandemic. It also inserted powers for the Commission to extend the new provisions by delegated acts. The Commission used those powers and made further amendments to the regulation via two delegated regulations adopted on 16 December 2020, which extended two of the new provisions until the end of 2021, rather than them expiring at the end of 2020.
The extended provisions allow airlines in financial difficulty to retain their operating licences, subject to certain conditions, and allow airports to urgently replace ground handling providers, should they suddenly cease trading. I will describe those provisions in more detail shortly.
The SI was made using the made affirmative procedure as the only means to bring it into force before the end of the transition period while ensuring parliamentary scrutiny. As I have noted, the most recent EU amendments were not adopted until 16 December. Only then was it possible to determine the precise content of this SI. The SI was laid before the House on 23 December, the earliest opportunity after the Commission’s adoption of the delegated regulations.
The first of the two provisions concerns air carrier licensing. Regulation 1008/2008 requires the Civil Aviation Authority to revoke or suspend the operating licence of an air carrier in financial difficulty and replace it with a temporary licence, but such action risks the integrity of the air carrier in the eyes of investors and customers, raising concerns about its viability. Normally, such actions are justified to tightly regulate carriers in financial difficulty, but during the covid-19 pandemic, all air carriers have suffered significant decreases in revenues, and a more flexible response is required.
Regulation 2020/696 inserted a new provision allowing regulators not to revoke or suspend operating licences where the carrier is in financial difficulty, providing a financial assessment is undertaken, safety is not at risk and there is a realistic prospect of financial reconstruction within 12 months.
The second extended provision concerns ground handling. Where a ground handler has ceased trading before the end of its contract, the new provision allows airports to choose a new provider directly for a limited period rather than undertaking a tender process. Reduced demand increases the risk of sudden failure of ground handling companies. The new provision ensures minimal disruption at airports. References to the ground handling directive are replaced by reference to the Airports (Groundhandling) Regulations 1997, which transpose the directive. Provisions relating to the Commission’s delegated powers are revoked, because they are no longer relevant to the UK.
This SI demonstrates that the Government are committed to ensuring a fully functioning regulatory framework for the aviation industry. The impacts of the pandemic will continue for some time to come, and the provisions that I have described provide the Civil Aviation Authority and airports with additional flexibility to respond. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, as ever.
We welcome this statutory instrument, which brings the updated EU regulation into UK law and ensures that the current temporary provision can continue as it is today, allowing for airlines to retain their operating licences for ground handling services to go on uninterrupted as the aviation sector continues to work through this critical time. Over the next weeks and months, it is going to be all about resilience for the industry.
As the constituency MP for Manchester airport, I was pleased to be asked by Government to serve on the Government taskforce when Thomas Cook collapsed. I want to place on record my gratitude to the former Business Secretary, the Department for Transport and others across Government for their support to staff, suppliers, stranded holidaymakers and many former employees who live in my constituency.
The airline’s collapse hit hard, with hundreds of dedicated long-term staff suddenly out of work. We are facing a similar situation in the current pandemic. We had already seen this happen in years past, with Monarch and the swift demise of Flybe. There is much work to be done to ensure that airline finances are more resilient. I look forward to working with Ministers and Government to ensure that that is the case, to prevent even more jobs and routes being lost to the UK. We have a world-class aviation sector and we need to keep it that way.
It is right that these regulations extend UK operating licences now, to remove the financial burden and give airlines a fighting chance of survival. That brings me to my recurring request—a request echoed by every major airline, airport and ground handling service company across the UK. Those pleas seem to have fallen on deaf ears at Her Majesty’s Treasury. The sector will not survive, certainly not as a global leader, without more support from Government.
I must mention my support for the Treasury’s recently announced business rates relief for airports and ground handling services. Although those moneys are close to bridging the gaps in the sector, I urge the Minister to go back to the Treasury and work with it to provide a robust financial support package for the industry, to help the UK once again fly as a world leader. We want that sector-specific deal and are still calling for it on this side of the House.
The sector is still waiting for the Government to set out a clear plan for how they expect restrictions can be lifted with the vaccine roll-out. We need certainty and confidence if the sector is to take off and regain its place as a bastion of the British economy.
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and the Committee for its consideration of the regulations. He put on record his thanks to the aviation sector, and I wish to associate myself with those comments. We all want a thriving aviation sector. This is part of our response to enable the sector to blossom throughout the pandemic.
It is the duty of a responsible Government to ensure that our statute book continues to function correctly after the end of the transition period, and that is exactly what the instrument will do. These regulations will make the changes necessary to ensure that the provisions of retained regulation 1008/2008 continue to function properly following the end of the transition period. They provide additional temporary flexibilities in responding to licensing issues, where airlines face financial difficulty and where airports need to urgently replace ground handling providers.
Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s comments about support for the sector, he will know that the airport and ground operation support scheme, announced on 24 November, will provide support for eligible businesses, subject to certain conditions and a cap per applicant of £8 million. The Department recognises the severe impact that covid-19 has had on travel. Work continues in order to understand how best industry can be supported now and in the future, as we hopefully emerge from the pandemic. I thank the Committee and hope Members will join me in supporting these regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Williamson
The last thing any Education Secretary wants to do is announce that schools will close…I never wanted to be in a position where we had to close schools again.
[Official Report, 6 January 2021, Vol. 686, c. 763-4.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson).
An error has been identified in my statement.
The correct statement should have been:
Gavin Williamson
The last thing any Education Secretary wants to do is announce that schools will close for some…I never wanted to be in a position where we had to close schools for some again.
The following is a further extract from the statement.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
I strongly welcome the Government’s laptop scheme, but we know that there will still be possibly hundreds of thousands of people on the wrong side of the digital divide. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that those students who just do not have an internet connection or computers at home will be able to go to school alongside children of critical workers?...
Gavin Williamson
The reason we are rolling out and expanding our devices package is that we realise how important it is for all children, especially those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. In the previous situation where schools had to be closed, during the months of March, April and May, children who did not have access to digital devices were able to access education in school, and I can confirm that we are issuing the same standard and the same guidance today.
[Official Report, 6 January 2021, Vol. 686, c. 768.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson).
An error has been identified in my response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon).
The correct response should have been:
Gavin Williamson
The reason we are rolling out and expanding our devices package is that we realise how important it is for all children, especially those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. In the previous situation where schools had to be closed, during the months of March, April and May, children who did not have access to digital devices were able to access education in school if they were considered vulnerable by their school or local authority, and I can confirm that we are issuing the same standard and the same guidance today.
The following is a further extract from the statement.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I share my right hon. Friend’s concern over schools being closed, especially for children in Wealden who do not have access to technology. Can he double confirm that those children without access to tech are now seen as vulnerable, and can immediately access physical education—I mean, attend school—and will not have to jump through hoops to be able to get into school?
Gavin Williamson
I can absolutely confirm that. That was issued in our initial guidance on school closures back in March last year. We have repeated that self-same guidance all the way through where schools have been in an unfortunate position, because we have had to recognise that during the latter stages of last year, there were schools that were closed, and even during that time children who did not have access to that type of education were able to access education settings.
[Official Report, 6 January 2021, Vol. 686, c. 783.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson).
An error has been identified in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani).
The correct response should have been:
Gavin Williamson
I can absolutely confirm that vulnerable children’s access to school was issued in our initial guidance on school closures back in March last year. We have repeated that self-same guidance all the way through where schools have been in an unfortunate position, because we have had to recognise that during the latter stages of last year, there were schools that were closed, and even during that time children who did not have access to that type of education were able to access education settings.
Written Statement
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Drug Misuse: Project ADDER
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock) and I have today announced the investment of £148 million to dismantle criminal gangs, reduce the demand for illegal drugs and help those in treatment and recovery, to make communities safer.
The Government are determined to take concerted action to address drug misuse, given its associated harms and that it is a significant driver of crime. This funding, which includes the largest increase in drug treatment funding for 15 years, will see more illegal drugs taken off the street and communities made safer, delivering on our pledge to “build back safer” from the pandemic.
This £148 million package comprises of £40 million for financial years 2021-22 to tackle drug supply and take down county lines gangs and £80 million for financial years 2021-22 for drug treatment services across the country. Additionally, £28 million over three years will be directed towards Project ADDER (addiction, diversion, disruption, enforcement and recovery), an innovative and targeted project to reduce drug-related offending, drug deaths and prevalence of drug use.
Funding will be directed to key local areas, to help drive down the prevalence of drug misuse and drug-related deaths in the community. Project ADDER will trial a new system-wide approach to drug misuse, which combines a targeted police approach with enhanced treatment and recovery services. It brings together the police, local councils and health services, to reduce drug-related offending, drug deaths and drug use and will run for three financial years in five areas, including Blackpool, Hastings, Middlesbrough, Norwich and Swansea Bay. These areas will benefit from the £28 million funding which will allow local police to ramp up activity to target local gang leaders driving the drugs trade and enable enhanced treatment and recovery services to help those people affected by drug use.
£40 million of the funding will be used to disrupt drug supply and “roll up” county lines. This will stop communities being blighted by drug-related crime. This funding, which doubles our investment from last year, will allow us to continue and enhance our response to county lines. That response is already delivering real results: since November 2019 more than 3,400 people have been arrested, more than 550 lines have been closed, and more than 770 vulnerable people have been safeguarded as a result of this work. The new funding will also allow us to take wider action against the highest harm criminals involved in trafficking drugs to the UK, including through enhanced work with international partners.
And an extra £80 million will also be invested in drug treatment services across England to give more support to people struggling with drug addiction, which we know can fuel crime. This funding will increase the number of treatment places available, including to divert offenders into tough and effective community sentences, and also to make sure that prisoners get into treatment on release. By providing treatment and saving lives, former offenders will also have the chance and support to break the cycle of crime and addiction.
Together the funding will help to drive down crime and violence in communities affected by the scourge of illegal drugs as we build back safer from the pandemic.
[HCWS725]
House of Lords
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. Oral Questions will now commence. I ask that those asking supplementary questions keep them short and confined to two points and that Ministers’ answers are also accordingly brief.
New Businesses: Capital Gains Tax
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Leigh of Hurley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the report by the Office for Tax Simplification OTS Capital Gains Tax Review: Simplifying by design, published on 11 November 2020, what steps they have taken to ascertain the impact of the equalisation of Capital Gains Tax to income tax on entrepreneurs starting new businesses.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question in my name on the Order Paper and, in so doing, draw your Lordships’ attention to my interests as disclosed in the register.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, in July 2020, the Chancellor commissioned the Office of Tax Simplification to examine and provide recommendations on how to make CGT as simple and efficient as possible. The Government are now considering this report and its recommendations. Any changes to the tax system will take place at a fiscal event and be informed by appropriate analysis of the impact on those affected by such changes.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I am sure my noble friend the Minister will agree that, while we all want tax to be as simple as possible, one has to recognise that capital gains tax is different from other taxes: it is to reward capital that is invested and is at risk. The Laffer curve for capital gains tax is different from the curve for income tax, and we need entrepreneurs, particularly serial entrepreneurs, to start new businesses in the UK.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government absolutely realise the vital role that entrepreneurs and small business people play in the UK economy. We ensure that, in assessing any tax changes, the impact is analysed, including any behavioural impacts of those changes.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I begin by drawing attention to my entry in the register of interests. Does the Minister agree that by taxing capital gains at the same marginal rates as income tax, the Government could end many tax avoidance schemes? Secondly, London and the south-east of England account for around 27% of the UK population but receive 50% of capital gains tax reliefs. What assessment have the Government made of the regional disparities created by their capital gains tax regime?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government are absolutely committed to levelling up across the UK, including by incentivising investment in areas outside London and the south-east. When it comes to capital gains tax and wider tax measures, the report by the Wealth Tax Commission actually found that, on a narrow definition, UK taxes on wealth are about average for G7 countries, and on a slightly wider definition, our taxes on wealth are among the highest of the G7 countries.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister confirm whether new businesses will benefit from this equalisation?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the proposals for equalisation are currently in a report from the Office of Tax Simplification and do not represent government policy—although of course the Government will look at the recommendations of that report very carefully.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister use her best endeavours to encourage the Chancellor to keep capital gains tax rates the same, and encourage him also to take the view that, within reason, lower rates of tax, particularly capital gains tax, can lead to higher revenues for the Treasury?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government always consider the need to balance raising revenue with the principles of fairness and market efficiency when we take tax decisions. All tax decisions also take into account the impacts of behavioural change for those affected. At any fiscal event, the Government produce and publish policy costings which are scrutinised by the OBR, and these include relevant behavioural impacts on revenue.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD) [V]
My Lords, business asset disposal relief is mistargeted if its aim is to stimulate investment. Does the Minister agree that it has become a form of retirement relief for successful and wealthy entrepreneurs?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government reformed business asset disposal relief at last year’s Budget, focusing the relief on the largest number of small business owners, ensuring they can still benefit from it, while reducing the allowance for the small number of taxpayers who were benefiting disproportionately from previous levels of relief.
Lord Colgrain (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register. Does the Minister agree that, in order to foster the level of entrepreneurial investment we need after both Brexit and the pandemic, consideration should be given to increasing business asset disposal relief? Secondly, does she agree that the Government should look again at the calculation of CGT on private equity investments, where the current arrangements are disproportionately disadvantageous to taxpayers?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, as I said, the Government recently changed the regime for business asset disposal relief, but I reassure my noble friend that the change has kept the relief focused on small business owners and that over 80% of those using the relief were unaffected. On his second point, carried interest is a share of the profits made by a financial fund which is treated as capital gains; the Government have no plans to change rules around carried interest, but we keep all tax policy under review.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, our tax system needs to support a competitive and dynamic economy. Businesses have suffered hugely during the pandemic. Does the noble Baroness agree that now is not the time to talk about raising taxes via capital gains tax or corporation tax? Does she also agree that raising taxes will stifle our recovery from the pandemic and hamper business investment and inward investment into the country, making our economy and businesses less competitive? We need to encourage entrepreneurship and investment into businesses; that will create the jobs that pay the taxes, which will increase our tax take.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I absolutely agree with the noble Lord’s sentiment about the importance of entrepreneurs and businesses to the country’s recovery. As I said to my noble friend earlier, the Government always consider the need to balance raising revenue with the principles of fairness and market efficiency. However, I cannot deny that, in future years, we will have some difficult decisions to take on balancing the books and recovering from the pandemic.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, that the Office of Tax Simplification deemed it necessary to split the findings of its review into two reports serves only to highlight the complexities and risks of tax reform. The Government often warn of the perils of unintended consequences; this has certainly been the case with previous iterations of capital gains tax. Does the Minister agree that it is vital to remain mindful of the potentially significant behavioural changes and wider economic impacts that may result from seemingly small changes to tax policy?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord puts his point very well; I entirely agree.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
Does the Minister consider that social impact, as well as behavioural impact, should be taken into account? Is there not a case for reducing the percentage of shares that must be sold to an employee ownership trust to qualify for capital gains tax relief or some partial relief?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, a number of factors are taken into account by the Treasury and the OBR when assessing tax policy. On the second point, the enterprise management incentive has been protected during the Covid-19 outbreak; the Treasury has prioritised urgent support measures for people, amending legislation so that the scheme can still be used by affected firms where employees are furloughed or where their working hours have been reduced as a result of Covid.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, the rebasing for CGT purposes of assets on death, coupled with the ability to transfer via a surviving spouse who expects to live seven years, distorts the transfer of assets down the generations. Has the Minister considered introducing a capital tax regime like those of Canada and Australia, where there is no inheritance tax but also no exemption from CGT on death—instead, 50% of the capital gains arising on death is aggregated with the beneficiary’s other income and charged to income tax, leaving the other 50% untaxed?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, inheritance tax is currently the main tax levied at the point of death. However, I am sure the noble Lord will be aware of the Office of Tax Simplification’s report on inheritance tax; the Government are considering its findings carefully.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
Covid-19: Early Years Sector
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the wellbeing of children under five affected by the COVID-19 pandemic; and what steps they are taking to support the early years sector affected by the pandemic.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, the department is monitoring the impact of the pandemic on children and Ofsted has reported on the effects of Covid-19 on the early years sector. Early years are crucial for child development, so the Government are prioritising keeping these settings open. The Chancellor announced a £44 million investment in 2021-22 for local authorities to increase hourly rates paid to childcare providers for the Government’s free childcare entitlement offers.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. The pandemic has deeply impacted the early years of many children’s lives. Given that pre-pandemic work by the Children’s Commissioner identified a need for strong connection across health, education and social care, will Her Majesty’s Government consider a Minister for children and young people at Cabinet level as a matter of urgency as we emerge from this pandemic?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is correct that there is a cross-departmental approach to this. She will be aware of the proposals for family hubs, which should provide families with access to all those services on the ground. I assure her that the Secretary of State for Education is prioritising policy on children at the request of the Prime Minister.
Lord Framlingham (Con) [V]
My Lords, given the vulnerability of children, whatever their age, in this rapidly changing world, when family breakdown and its sad consequences have become commonplace, will the Minister use her good offices to stress the huge and undeniable importance of the traditional family structure to children and do all she can to promote it?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, it is quite clear that with the effects of the pandemic on children and young people, family structure and wider community groups have been essential in providing support, along with our ensuring that children have access to school—when it is possible for them to be in school. As I reiterate, the Secretary of State for Education is prioritising children’s policies.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, are the Government giving sufficient financial support to CAMHS—child and adolescent mental health services—for young children, many of whom have urgent mental health problems?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, as a result of the NHS plan, £2.3 billion is being invested in mental health services, and 345,000 individuals should be additionally supported within CAMHS by 2023-24. In relation to schools, mental health issues have been prioritised within guidance. We are still rolling out mental health support teams in secondary schools and have made specific links between mental health issues in the Keeping Children Safe in Education updated guidance, as it can often be a symptom of a safeguarding issue, not just a mental health problem.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, even before the pandemic, 65% of children in some areas were not receiving the mandated two-and-a-half-year health visitor check because of cuts to the workforce. Will there be any additional resources for the health visitor workforce to help them to catch up with missed visits to vulnerable young families during the pandemic?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, health visitors do essential work. The Government support the letter written by the chief nurse, which outlines that health visitors and other front-line health professionals should not be moved from those roles in this stage of the pandemic, to ensure that visits can be made to those vulnerable families. Since April 2020, it has been part of GPs’ contracts that they are to have an assessment with a mother six to eight weeks after the child is born.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, a survey carried out on behalf of the DfE last October into the effects of Covid-19 on childcare and early years providers showed that only 45% of private nurseries and 55% of childminders believed that they would be financially able to continue for another year. It simply cannot be right that the average gap between the hourly cost of delivering a funded two year-old’s place and the funding rate paid to settings for that place is £2 an hour—a 37% funding deficit. The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Childcare and Early Education has called for the Government to commission an independent review of the costs of delivering childcare. Surely the Minister cannot deny that such a review is essential to safeguard the long-term viability of the sector.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, in the autumn and summer terms, the Government paid out the entitlements regardless of the number of children attending these settings. As attendance rose during the autumn, we gave notice to the sector that we were moving back to a per-child-attending basis of funding. Tomorrow is the census, when we will have an up-to-date picture of how many are in attendance in those settings. What is essential at the moment is that the department monitors the market and what is happening in this sector to be able to have the most up-to-date information on the sustainability of those settings, as the noble Lord quite rightly outlines.
Baroness Verma (Con) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister knows that domestic violence during Covid has increased dramatically and scarily. As there are reduced visits from health professionals, can she tell me what work is being done with local community groups to ensure that children—particularly from BAME communities where English is not the first language—are not left without any support? I understand the six-to-eight-week visit after a baby is born, but these children are pre-school age and need to be monitored, particularly in the most vulnerable households.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, we have specifically requested that, if those children already classified as vulnerable are not attending early years settings, those settings do their best to get in touch with the children. That is why it has also been important to look at the role of the voluntary sector. The department has given £11 million to the Barnardo’s-led See, Hear, Respond initiative, which is a consortium of charities for those children who are not yet known to be vulnerable. We have sadly had around 1,500 referrals through that initiative.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB) [V]
My Lords, health visiting has continued during lockdown, using video contacts with parents instead of face-to-face visits. Can the Minister assure the House that this approach will be rigorously evaluated before widespread adoption? This is particularly important given the recent stark findings from the child safeguarding practice review, which showed that the number of children dying or being seriously harmed after suspected abuse or neglect rose by a quarter, to 285 notifications, during April to September in England. Of these, 102 involved babies under the age of one. Does the Minister agree that it is vital that a properly resourced health visiting service is available to parents and young children, particularly the most vulnerable families, post Covid?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, there will be much evaluation of the strategies used by various statutory agencies during the pandemic. The Secretary of State has written to directors of children’s services in local authorities to highlight particularly the group that are most vulnerable: babies. They are a key group that we have asked the See, Hear, Respond initiative to focus on. One of the important differences between this lockdown and the first is that we are enabling birth registrations to take place, which, of course, are a key function to make us aware of a child’s birth and therefore be able to follow up if there are any issues.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
Could the noble Lord ask his question please?
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
I think we will go on, in that case. Sorry. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]
I welcome the fact that, in recognition of the importance of early learning, the Government have kept nursery schools open. Primary schools are also open for some pupils, although the arrangements seem to vary locally. The success of vaccination gives us all hope. Does my noble friend agree that we should not reverse these arrangements, whatever happens, and that we should move to get all children back into primary school from after the February half-term?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I share the noble Baroness’s ambition—it is our ambition—that, as soon as the public health guidance allows, we will get children back into school. Of course, vulnerable children and those of critical care workers are still in school. Indeed, just under 20% of the early years sector is school-based, and those settings should be open in accordance with the guidance that all early years settings should be open. But we very much look forward to the day we can reopen schools fully, as I believe most parents and teachers do.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. I understand that we have a Minister for the fourth Oral Question—the hard-working noble Lord, Lord Bethell—so we will go to that. I call the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.
Covid-19: Vaccination
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cormack
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have in place to ensure that no one has to wait more than three months for a second dose of a COVID-19 vaccination.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, we are absolutely committed to making sure that everyone gets two doses, so if they have received their Pfizer first dose, they will get a Pfizer second dose within 12 weeks of the first one. Similarly, if they have had their AstraZeneca first dose, they will get their AstraZeneca second dose within 12 weeks. The four UK CMOs and the JCVI agree that prioritising the first vaccine dose will protect the greatest number of at-risk people overall in the shortest period of time.
Lord Cormack (Con) [V]
My Lords, naturally I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I have just returned from the very efficiently run county showground vaccination centre outside Lincoln, where I have had my first dose and have been given a date for my second. My noble friend has certainly reassured me on the Government’s determination both to give the same vaccine and at the right time. However, is he aware of the findings in Israel, where there has been an extremely impressive rollout of vaccination, which have cast considerable doubt on the wisdom of delaying the second dose? This has caused a great deal of concern, not least in your Lordships’ House, voiced by the noble Baronesses, Lady Boothroyd and Lady Bakewell, among others. Can he please give us some reassurance that there is no danger of diminishing the efficacy of the vaccine by delaying the second dose?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am extremely pleased to hear the update from my noble friend, and I thank all those in Lincoln who were contributing to his effective vaccination and his second appointment, which is very reassuring. I reassure him that, on the Israeli numbers, Sir Patrick Vallance, the Chief Scientific Adviser, has been very clear—he was on the media round this morning. The Israelis looked at a very specific time period—14 days—and a very specific age group. This is very different to the analysis done by the JCVI and the MHRA, which looked at all age groups over a much broader period. The efficacy of immunity from days 10 to 21 is thought to be 89%. That is a very considerable and impactful effect, and I have spoken to the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, to reassure her on that matter.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the rollout of the first vaccine has gone fairly smoothly, although there have been glitches or bumps, particularly in terms of regional disparities. What lessons have been learned, and what was the reason for choosing 12 weeks—was it administrative, medical or supply?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, there have been glitches; I do not know whether there are lessons learned. However, I can share with the noble Lord that the practicalities of getting the Pfizer vaccine in particular—which, as he knows, requires deep-cold storage—into every part of the country are quite challenging, and we are trying to reach not only the big mass centres but community pharmacies and GP surgeries. The delivery of the vaccine to thousands and thousands of locations will always be a little uneven, and there have been occasions where we have deemed it the correct procedure to have people stood up for their vaccination even though we were not 100% sure of the delivery of the vaccination. That does create concern but I think has been the right approach to take.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, my question follows that of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea. For many in isolation, the appointment for their first jab is all that has kept them going, and the certainty of timing of the second has changed since the introduction of the vaccine regime. Can the Minister tell us whether that is to do with the region—there seem to be problems in the south-west—or is it demand, logistics or science?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, if I understood the noble Baroness’s question correctly, I reassure her that absolutely everyone’s details are registered in the national immunisation database, so everyone will receive an invitation for their second dose, as I mentioned earlier. However, the reason for having this longer period before the second dose is completely pragmatic. Every 250 doses saves a life, so it is absolutely essential that we get the maximum number of first doses out as quickly as possible. The MHRA, the JCVI and others have looked at the safety and efficacy of this approach, and they have found reassuring evidence that this will work extremely well. I take great joy in the fact that we have found a way to get the highest number of doses to the greatest number of people as quickly as we possibly can.
Lord Ribeiro (Con) [V]
My Lords, mindful of the impact of Covid-19 on front-line health staff during this pandemic, and given the report in the Times today of reduced supplies of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine during January and February, can the Minister say what plans there are to ensure that these front-facing health staff in hospitals and care homes are prioritised as a matter of urgency to protect them from the pandemic? As someone in his late 70s who is waiting for the vaccine, I am happy to forgo mine until such time as the health staff I mentioned are protected.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am enormously grateful for my noble friend’s important gesture and pay tribute to his generosity of spirit. However, it is absolutely essential that he gets his vaccine as soon as he can, because he is at the top of the list. Morbidity is determined by age, not proximity. Healthcare staff are of course of deep concern to all of us, but those who are in PPE and in protected conditions have no greater chance of getting the disease than members of the general public. It is essential that we put those who have the highest risk of morbidity—the oldest—at the front of the queue, which is why we have the prioritisation list that we have.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the hard-working Minister and his Government for listening to the most clinically vulnerable groups and for reprioritising vaccination for all care workers, ensuring their greater safety. However, I am concerned that people under 65 with learning disabilities who live in care homes are in group 6 rather than in group 1, when ONS data clearly shows that they have been disproportionately affected throughout the pandemic. It is illogical that they now have to wait longer than other people with learning disabilities—older ones—in residential care. What plans do the Government have to ensure consistency and fairness in vaccination allocation to all people in residential care, especially in this category of people?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness puts her point very well. There is a huge amount of sympathy and concern for those who have underlying conditions, and she is right that ONS data on those with underlying conditions demonstrates a higher hospitalisation and mortality rate. That is why we have put all individuals between 16 and 64 with underlying health conditions that put them at a higher risk of serious disease and mortality higher up the prioritisation list than others. However, it is age more than anything else that is the greatest determinant of morbidity, and that is why the list looks the way it does.
Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I would like to ask the Minister about those who are housebound and bedbound. If their domiciliary workers, care workers and unpaid carers are vaccinated in centres and with their GPs, what arrangements are in place for home visits to vaccinate this particular cohort of people, who cannot leave their home because of their disability or their particular conditions? It has been rumoured that there is no intention to vaccinate this cohort at present, which I find remarkable. So I would like the noble Lord to assure the House that arrangements are being made for this particular cohort.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I reassure the noble Baroness that it is absolutely not our intention to leave those who are housebound out of the scheme—not at all. In fact, they are an important priority. They are logistically a big challenge. We are in a numbers game. We are trying to get the greatest number vaccinated as quickly as possible. However, we are working extremely closely with community pharmacists and GPs to try to figure out the way in which we can get the vaccine to people who cannot make their own way to a vaccination centre. Those plans are in advanced progress. I do not have details of them to hand, but I would be glad to write to the noble Baroness with those details.
Baroness Sheehan (LD) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister say how concerned the Government are that diminishing efficacy in partially immunised people among a population with high prevalence of the disease, as we have in the UK, will foster ideal conditions for the virus to mutate into vaccine-resistant forms?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I do not quite agree with the premise of the question, which is the concept of being partially vaccinated. When you get your first vaccination shot, you are vaccinated, your body has been primed, B cells make the antibodies and you learn how to fight the disease. That is categoric. Where the noble Baroness absolutely has a point is that it is an uncomfortable truth that when we lean in to the virus, it will seek to escape and mutate, and that is the moment of absolute highest risk for the country. That is why we are trying to move as quickly as we humanly and possibly can: there is a moment in time, an opportunity to get the vaccine out to as many people as possible to avoid the mutation throwing up variants that escape our vaccine.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
We heard a few voices last spring and summer suggesting that the National Health Service was not good enough and that a privatised service would have been better in dealing with the pandemic. They are remarkably silent now. Will the Minister join me in the celebrations across this country at the moment of the brilliance of the National Health Service and the fact that people being vaccinated are going in with a smile on their face, being welcomed by people—volunteers and staff—with a smile on their face, all saying how brilliant our National Health Service is?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful for the testimony of the noble Lord, but I would probably put it slightly differently. Listen, we are in Act I, and I do not think it is quite the right moment to take curtain calls and bows just yet. The NHS has stepped up to this challenge absolutely magnificently, but there is still a huge amount to do and to get through. In addition to the praise that the noble Lord rightly gave the NHS, I also pay tribute to other parts of government, and particularly to the Army, local authorities and the private sector, which contributed the vaccine in the first place, all of which have worked together in a great spirit of collaboration. It is only through that spirit of collaboration that we have been able to deliver what we have.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed, and we now go back to the third Oral Question.
Flooding
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rooker
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of preparations against flooding in England in 2021.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con) [V]
My Lords, alongside our record £5.2 billion investment to better protect 336,000 properties over the next six years, our policy statement sets out plans to accelerate progress to better protect and better prepare against flooding and coastal erosion. We are fully prepared to respond to flooding this winter; this includes £120 million to repair flood defences damaged during last winter’s floods, 6,500 trained staff, 25 miles of temporary flood barriers and 250 high-volume pumps ready to deploy.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
Does the Minister accept that in a car-crash performance at the Public Accounts Committee last week, his department and the Environment Agency failed to answer the criticism in the National Audit Office report on flood risk management? Of the 4,500 homes flooded last winter, a few are a hundred yards from my home in Ludlow, some still empty and with no extra protection. I ask Ministers to visit flood areas, as the one thing they do not get from television and the media is the smell. It is that smell that would wake them up to do even more.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
[Inaudible] —report. I should say that we are pleased that the report highlights that government investment is making a difference by significantly lowering flood risk for thousands upon thousands of homes right across the country, on the back of the Government’s £2.6 billion flood defence programme, which has since been significantly increased. This programme is on time, it is on budget and it has yielded results, as acknowledged by the National Audit Office, but I fully take on board the noble Lord’s comments about the misery involved in having one’s life turned upside down by the horror of flooding. This is of course a priority for this Government.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
The Minister is probably aware that it is not only homes, businesses and agricultural land that are flooded but our transport infrastructure. Last year, in Scotland, in Carmont, a train crashed into a landslip and three people died. Do the Government have an urgent national plan? It could not be more appropriate today, when Storm Christoph is hammering at our country.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
As I say, this is a priority issue for the Government. We are now on track to better protect 300,000 homes from flooding through the £2.6 billion. We have committed to doubling that investment to what I believe is a record £5.2 billion, which will protect a further 336,000 properties from flooding and coastal erosion over the next six years. We believe that will reduce national flood risk by about 11% and help avoid about £32 billion in future economic damage, providing benefits and supporting job creation. We are putting our money where our mouth is in tackling this issue. We are introducing a suite of measures on the back of that £5.2 billion and, of course, we hope to reduce the risk of flooding year on year, even against the horrors of climate change.
Lord Flight (Con) [V]
My Lords, 65% of flood prevention is in poor health since the National Rivers Authority was subsumed into the Environment Agency, and no further checks have taken place on the state of river and sea walls for nearly 30 years. I put it to the Minister that the sooner flood defence is separated off from the Environment Agency—and given to an independent authority in charge of flood defence and how large sums of money are spent—the quicker our flood defences will be restored to the good order they had under the National Rivers Authority.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
I believe that Defra, the Environment Agency and local emergency services are fully prepared to respond to any flooding alongside the response required to Covid-19. Extensive preparations are being made to operate flood defences and flood storage reservoirs and to put up temporary barriers where needed to protect communities ahead of the incoming weather. I just make the point that the Environment Agency has 25 miles of temporary flood barriers, 250 high-volume pumps, eight principal depots spread around the country, 6,500 staff trained and ready to respond and 1,500 military on standby to provide mutual aid. The Government’s preparations have been made and we are, we believe, fully prepared. I do not accept the noble Lord’s comments about the Environment Agency.
Lord Krebs (CB) [V]
My Lords, as a result of climate change, the sea level will rise and some of our coastal areas will be inundated in the coming decades. Have the Government assessed the eventual need to relocate some coastal communities due to flooding risk, and have they identified which are the most vulnerable? Related to this, do the Government have a policy on how much flood risk will be acceptable in future?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
The noble Lord highlights an important point. We know that many of our coastal settlements are at risk if trends continue in the same direction. We are also investing, as part of our response and the £5.2 billion, £200 million to support more than 25 local areas to take forward wider innovative actions that improve their resilience to flooding and coastal erosion, with a big emphasis on nature-based solutions. I cannot provide the noble Lord with a numerical answer on the level of acceptable damage, but we are increasingly emphasising nature-based solutions, because we know that, in terms of pound-for-pound investment, that is where we are likely to see a very significant return. That is as true on the mainland as it is on the coast.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I refer to my registered interests. The national risk register orders the reasonable worst-case scenarios for each of the risks that it considers in terms of their impact. Floods rank in the second-highest category of impact, only exceeded by pandemics and a large-scale CBRN attack. So I ask the Minister: what is the estimated cost to the nation of a reasonable worst-case flood scenario? Less than £1 billion a year is scheduled to be spent on flood defences over the next six years. Is that anything like enough?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
The £5.2 billion is a record investment by any Government ever in relation to flood risk, but it is not going to be invested in isolation. The Government will shortly come forward with a tree strategy, backed up by a £640 million nature for climate fund. That tree strategy will lend itself in many different ways to help to reduce the risk of flooding. Land planted to trees in the right places can absorb water many times faster than land that is not planted to trees. We have a peat strategy, which has direct implications for flood prevention, and the flood strategy that I mentioned earlier. Combined, this suite of policies, backed up with significant investment, should be able to reduce the risk that the noble Lord has identified.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, flooding is becoming a way of life for many people. Flood Re, an insurance scheme for residents unable to get flooding insurance through usual means, has been running for several years. Do the Government use the information on the frequency of Flood Re claims to prioritise where flood defence budgets are spent, in order to bring relief to areas that are constantly flooded?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
In terms of where to invest, where the Government invests and where the Environment Agency places its focus are entirely based on the data that we have. Therefore, the areas that are most at risk are prioritised. We do not distinguish between urban versus rural or north versus south. Priority is based on solid criteria that apply across the board. The noble Baroness mentioned Flood Re. There has been a big increase in availability and affordability since its launch. Independent research tells us that, before that, only 9% of households with previous flood claims could get two or more quotes on price-comparison sites, and none could get five or more. Now, 100% can get two or more quotes and 99% can get five or more, so the initiative seems to have worked.
Baroness Rawlings (Con) [V]
I thank the Minister for telling us about the tree strategy, which I was going to ask about and is very important. Is it not also the case that improving drainage structures, even by following the Dutch dyke system, can prevent flooding?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My noble friend was, I think, referring to dredging, which certainly can play a part in flood-risk management. However, the truth is that it can also make flooding worse downstream. Over each of the past three years, the EA has spent between £50 million and £55 million to manage the flow in channels. This allows the EA to dredge around 200 kilometres of river channel every year. Where there is evidence that dredging will reduce flood risk without increasing flooding downstream, and where it meets the Government’s criteria and is affordable, we will do it. However, we need to make sure that it is done in the right place; otherwise, we might end up with perverse outcomes.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
The time allowed for this Question has elapsed, and that brings us to end of Question Time.
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.
Northern Ireland: Victims’ Payment Scheme
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Empey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that payments are made to victims of the Troubles in Northern Ireland under the Victims’ Payment Scheme; and what discussions they have had with the Northern Ireland Executive about the delivery of the Scheme.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, the Secretary of State has made clear the high priority that he places on having the victims’ payment scheme open and receiving applications as soon as possible. He has committed to continuing to engage with Executive Ministers to this end. Officials also continue to support the Northern Ireland Executive on delivery of the scheme, which victims have waited too long for. The UK Government have always been clear that the devolved funding settlement means that the Executive is funded through the block grant, together with its own revenue-raising capabilities, to deliver its statutory responsibilities, including this scheme.
Lord Empey (UUP) [V]
My Lords, on Monday, the Sinn Féin Finance Minister at Stormont produced a draft budget for the next financial year. In that budget, there was nil provision for payment of these pensions. I know that Sinn Féin is opposed to this scheme and had to be dragged kicking and screaming through the courts, but the main people we must focus on are the victims, whose trauma has been exacerbated throughout the struggle over the payment of these pensions. They have had to go to court once already; they may very well have to do so again. The situation is intolerable.
Having passed the legislation to ensure that these people are recompensed for these life-changing events over many years, surely we have a national responsibility to ensure that this pension is paid, and paid on time. Applications are due to start in March, yet there is no provision and no agreement. We are playing political football here. Can the Minister assure the House that these pensions will be paid in the next financial year; that applications will be accepted in March; and that this nonsense will come to an end before more people are traumatised?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Indeed. I listened carefully to the noble Lord’s comments. As he knows, the UK Government made legislation to establish a victims’ payment scheme, both to fulfil their legal obligation and because they are committed to doing what they can to progress a scheme that has for too long been delayed by political disagreements, as the noble Lord alluded to.
On the amount, it is not clear how much money is required. That is something for Naomi Long and the justice board to work through. I know that she has been working extremely hard to gain an estimate of the figures—that is, the numbers involved and the amounts that might need to be paid out.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, does the Secretary of State not understand that, by refusing seriously to discuss with the Northern Ireland Executive the funding of the Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme —so far, the only piece of successful legislation on legacy passed by this Government and which originated in this House—the scheme could be stillborn, and the shameful failure to deliver payments to which those severely injured through no fault of their own are legally entitled will cast a toxic cloud over any future efforts to deal with other legacy aspects of Northern Ireland’s violent past?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Again, the noble Lord makes a good point. It is hugely frustrating that the formal designation of a department to lead on delivering the scheme took so long; in fact, as he will know, it took a court case to get that designation in 2020. However, we have that now and the Department of Justice is working very hard to put the systems in place to do what the noble Lord said: to get the payments to victims.
Baroness Suttie (LD) [V]
My Lords, the current very public stalemate is causing great distress and anxiety to many of the victims who hoped to benefit from this scheme. Does the Minister agree with what the Northern Ireland Justice Minister, Naomi Long, said yesterday:
“I will leave no stone unturned in terms of trying to get a resolution to this … We do not want to let the victims down at this late stage, given the good progress that has been made”?
Does he therefore acknowledge that engaging with the Northern Ireland Executive and holding the joint meeting requested by them would do much to help make progress?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I agree with the noble Baroness’s comments in terms of the comments made by Naomi Long, who, again, is working extremely hard to put systems in place, establish the necessary resources and hire the appropriate experienced people. This is what is required to get to the right point. We hope that the month of March will be the launch pad from which payments can be made to victims.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, what is the current understanding between the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive as to who is responsible for funding this scheme? During my time in the Northern Ireland Office, it was clearly a devolved competence. Does my noble friend agree that, out of a block grant of some £15 billion, it ought to be perfectly realistic to expect the Sinn Féin Finance Minister to find the money for these long-overdue payments?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I touched on this earlier. As my noble friend will know, the funding for the scheme is to come from the block grant. The regulations provide for the Executive Office to provide funding to the department responsible for supporting the victims’ payments board. The devolved funding settlement means that the Executive are funded through the block grant—which, by the way, is £14.1 billion for 2020-21—together with Northern Ireland’s own revenue-raising capabilities to fund their statutory responsibilities.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP) [V]
My Lords, victims’ uncertainty must be removed as soon as possible. I am glad that the Government, working with us in the last Parliament, put the legislation in place for these pensions and ensured that they would go only to innocent victims, because terrorists and their victims should never be equated. Since many people throughout the United Kingdom are eligible under this scheme, not just those based in Northern Ireland, does the Minister agree that the Government have a national duty in relation to its financing because of the recipients, who are likely to be in receipt of benefits and pensions? Does he also agree that the Sinn Féin Finance Minister in Northern Ireland needs to step up and work constructively to find solutions so that the victims get the compensation that they deserve?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord. The victims, some of whom have suffered horrific injuries and endured great trauma, have been waiting for too long. As he will know, it will be up to Naomi Long and her board to decide on eligibility for payments. I have no doubt that she has in mind those who will apply from not just Northern Ireland but Great Britain.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we all understand that the pandemic is dominating everything in Northern Ireland, including affecting the victims of the Troubles, but time is running out for many of these men and women. This matter is now very urgent. Will the Minister go back to the Secretary of State and ask him personally to deal with it—especially the issue of finance—including through a meeting with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I take the noble Lord’s point but I see no need to do that because the Secretary of State is fully engaged on this matter. As the noble Lord will know, he regards this as a key priority. He continues to do what he can to support the Northern Ireland Executive to be sure that the money is paid to victims as soon as possible.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
My Lords, first, I must declare an interest, having been a victim of an assassination attempt in Northern Ireland. I will not be seeking any benefit from this scheme.
People have been waiting far too long to benefit from this scheme. Many lost limbs or their eyesight, and they are getting older. Time is running out, and this should be a matter of urgency for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and for the Northern Ireland Executive. It seems to me that the Minister of Finance in Northern Ireland is delaying action because he wants those who were terrorists and were victims in the campaign in Northern Ireland also to benefit. It is a political gesture by the Minister of Finance. That must not be the way to make progress. When the Secretary of State says, “Stop this nonsense”, he is really saying that it is a matter for the block grant and the Stormont Executive. Will the block grant be increased accordingly because of this scheme? Alternatively, can the Secretary of State take control of this scheme and issue the benefits from Westminster, which originally passed the legislation?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
First, I am very well aware that the noble Lord was caught up in the Troubles. I will not be drawn on some of the comments he made, but as I said earlier in response to the question from my noble friend Lord Cain, Northern Ireland received a block grant of £14.1 billion for 2021-22 and the Northern Ireland Executive will receive an additional £918 million on top of the Northern Ireland baseline, so the funding is there. Of course, as the noble Lord will know, however much is required to respond to applications from victims, that is spread over more than a decade.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, should not both the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Executive hang their heads in shame at the unconscionable delay in implementing a scheme for which both Houses of Parliament have repeatedly called? Is it not disgraceful that while Ministers squabble, people are dying without the compensation that is their due? If the new UK Government/Northern Ireland Executive board cannot sort out problems such as this, what is it for?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I can only repeat to my noble friend that, as he well knows, it is up to the Northern Ireland Executive to take this forward. The Secretary of State is, and always has been, firmly committed to seeing the introduction of this scheme and payments being made to victims who have waited far too long, as I have said. We will continue to prioritise the Executive’s delivery of them. Finally, I hope I have given reassurance that Naomi Long and her team are working hard and fast and are making very good progress.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that there is an important vacancy, namely that of the Victims Commissioner for Northern Ireland, so there is nobody to speak out on behalf of victims or to apply pressure to the Executive or whoever is holding this up? What will the Minister do to ensure that the Victims Commissioner is appointed as soon as possible?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I am aware that a Victims Commissioner has not yet been appointed. That process is under way, but I reassure the noble Lord that that is not delaying any process to pay out money to victims.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the Minister said that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is fully engaged in this matter. Will the Minister ensure that the Secretary of State accelerates that level of engagement and has an immediate meeting with the First and Deputy First Ministers, the Minister of Finance and the Minister for Justice to find a solution —perhaps a hybrid solution whereby the Government provide the up-front initial funding, with the Northern Ireland Executive providing for the ongoing annual costs?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I am sure that the Secretary of State will be listening and I will certainly pass that on. However, I again reassure the noble Baroness that the Secretary of State has regular meetings with the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and, where necessary, the Irish Government on many matters, including this one. That is ongoing. It is important that he does his bit, which he is doing, to encourage the Northern Ireland Executive, whose responsibility it is, to take things forward.
Lord Cormack (Con) [V]
My Lords, I do not doubt for a moment the integrity or determination of the Secretary of State, having spoken to him last week, but this is a scandal. The people in Northern Ireland have prevaricated and procrastinated and while that has been going on, people have been dying. For many, it is too late already. Has the time not come for prime ministerial involvement here? Will my noble friend please pass on that suggestion because we need to break this logjam immediately?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I take note of my noble friend’s comment, but what counts is what is happening on the ground. Naomi Long and her board are taking forward the necessary processes to ensure that applications are made available to those victims who wish to apply.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
Unfortunately, the time allowed for this Private Notice Question has now elapsed.
UK Musicians: EU Visa Arrangements
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, despite the helpful exchanges on this topic yesterday, this seems to be about how DCMS can square the Home Office red lines on freedom of movement. We need greater transparency. Will the Minister place copies of all correspondence between the EU and the UK on this issue in the Library? Secondly, we need trust. Can she confirm that the Government will take full account of the views of the ISM and others that the short-term business visitor model is not appropriate and that any final agreement for visitors from the EU to the UK should be based on a 90-day permitted paid engagement model? Finally, we need a plan. Will the Minister spell out what the original UK proposal was and commit to writing to us about what the new negotiating objective will be—assuming that the EU’s door is indeed still open?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his questions. I do not think the red lines were between DCMS and the Home Office; I think they were between the UK and the EU. We proposed a tailored deal for musicians and other cultural professionals and the EU did not accept it. On the correspondence and the discussions, my noble friend the Minister for Digital and Culture said yesterday in the other place that she would talk to BEIS and Home Office colleagues with a view to publishing the details of those discussions. On the noble Lord’s final point, we are consulting extensively with the sector to understand what it needs to be able to thrive once we emerge from the pandemic.
Lord McNally (LD) [V]
My Lords, that explanation just does not fit with all the briefings that have gone on on both sides of the channel about what really happened. What really happened is that the Government were inflexible in the TCA for fear of the European Research Group and other Brexit zealots anxious to protect the purity of Brexit. The Government have got to go back to the table on this. My advice to musicians would be to mobilise the millions of supporters, particularly among the young, who should be outraged at the betrayal of this important sector.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am surprised at the noble Lord’s remarks, because our inflexibility, as he describes it, was simply that we tried very hard in the negotiations to stand up for Britain’s brilliant cultural and creative sectors, and to reflect their request to us about what they needed from the deal. Perhaps the remark about inflexibility could be pointed elsewhere.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, the EU has visa-waiver agreements in place with some 27 countries that allow 90 days’ visa-free travel within any 180 days and that specifically permit artists to undertake paid work on an ad hoc basis. In contrast to responses yesterday, an EU official quoted today has said that the phrase “ad hoc” covers touring and could, by negotiation, have been extended to support staff. Given that, can the Minister say whether the Government will move quickly to explore a similar agreement for the UK alongside the trade deal? Does she agree that taking back control of our borders was surely never intended to leave UK artists with less freedom to pursue their craft than their creative peers in, say, Tonga, St Lucia or the Federated States of Micronesia?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I can only reiterate to the noble Baroness that our understanding of the EU’s offer is not as she describes it. I also repeat the words of my honourable friend the Minister for Culture yesterday, when she said that, if there was an open door to talk about these things, she would be the first person through it. However, I do not think that we should raise people’s hopes about this. As the sector has said, it needs clarity, not recrimination, and that is what we are working on.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)
Does the Minister recognise the huge value of music globally to mental and physical human health? As that has been a matter of profound importance during the pandemic, as it will be following it, this really matters. If so, will she persuade the Government and all departments to prioritise music as one of the major attractions of the UK globally? We are a fount of music, or the head for music, in terms of performance, practising, invention and teaching, and this could be one of the biggest attractions to the UK from people around the world.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend makes some powerful points. She is quite right that UK music is one of our great success stories, generating almost £6 billion in GVA annually. In relation to mental and physical health, we have worked together with Arts Council England, the National Academy for Social Prescribing and NHS England to set up the thriving communities fund, which will bring all forms of art to communities to help them recover from Covid.
Baroness Bakewell (Lab) [V]
My Lords, many, if not most, musicians are freelance or self-employed workers. As such, they are among the 3 million taxpayers who have fallen through the net of the Government’s financial support during the pandemic. Will the Government and the Minister please explain why they cannot at least support musicians in this way?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns in this area, and we definitely continue to explore routes through it. However, I reassure her that direct funding has gone from Arts Council England to freelancers and, furthermore, to some of the benevolent societies that support them.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, it is very depressing that the careers of thousands of British-based musicians have been affected by the Government’s devotion to ending free movement. I have no doubt at all that there is blame on both sides, but we are where we are. I am sure that Ministers will attempt, as best they can, to renegotiate this lamentable situation. Perhaps I may make a practical suggestion. Given that when our musicians travel to Europe, they are now in the same position as when they travel to the United States, will the Minister have a conversation with her ministerial colleagues about committing resources in terms of both officials and money to create an online one-stop shop to help musicians who still, amazingly, might wish to tour in Europe to navigate the new bureaucracy?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his suggestion. We are exploring all ways of making this as simple and straightforward as possible, but he will be aware that each member state has its own regulations in this regard. However, our ambition is clear.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interests. Does the Minister accept that this wholly avoidable mess turns the clock back half a century, leaves musicians, particularly freelance soloists, with unnecessary obstacles to working professionally in EU countries, and imposes road blocks for European musicians wishing to perform in Britain? Is this not a narrow-minded approach that not only undermines our musicians and concert organisers but shows how inward-looking post-Brexit Britain is fast becoming?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I reassure the noble Lord that our negotiators did everything in their power to avoid the current situation. We are incredibly disappointed that the EU neither proposed nor would accept a tailored deal for musicians. We are trying to give those brilliant and talented people the clarity that they need to continue to thrive.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness has often told the House—indeed, she has just done so again—that the Government are committed to supporting musicians, but I have to tell her from personal experience that they do not feel supported. They feel shocked and scared. The EU trade deal actively harms their interests, and they do not understand why. But since, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, has just said, we are where we are, will she confirm that the Government will now engage urgently in further negotiations with the EU and with member states to ensure that the livelihoods of UK musicians are not seriously damaged?
Baroness Barran (Con)
With regard to the noble Baroness’s broader point about support for musicians, the culture recovery fund has already dispersed over £168 million to more than 600 musical groups and venues, so I think that our support for musicians is clear. In terms of reopening negotiations with the EU, the noble Baroness’s party, and my own, very recently voted for the deal, which included all the points that we are discussing today. Our offer still stands but, in the meantime, we are pursuing simplification and clarification on a bilateral basis with individual member states.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Domestic Abuse Bill
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Domestic Abuse Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 38, Schedule 1, Clauses 39 to 68, Schedule 2, Clauses 69 to 80, Title.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend Lady Williams.
Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill
Wednesday 20th January 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill 2019-21 View all Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 3 November 2020 - (large print) - (3 Nov 2020)
Baroness Goldie
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Relevant document: 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is with pleasure that I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I begin by paying tribute to the brave men and women of our Armed Forces, who protect this country and our security, day in and day out. These exceptional individuals are often called upon to perform their jobs under extraordinarily difficult and dangerous circumstances, enduring great hardship, being exposed to injury and risking the ultimate sacrifice of their own lives.
Similarly, I want to pay tribute to the families of current and former personnel. They keep homes together, bring up children and attend to the care of older relatives, giving the precious members of our Armed Forces the peace of mind to do their duty. We owe the Armed Forces and their families our utmost respect and support, and we must reflect that in how we treat them. They must know that, when they are taking necessary and appropriate action to protect us and the freedoms that we value, we in turn will not shy away from taking the necessary and appropriate action to protect them.
However, the reality is that, having asked these personnel to risk life and injury in the most unforgiving of environments in overseas conflicts, they have returned home to face a dark shadow of uncertainty: an enduring, corrosive uncertainty about whether or not they will be called into criminal or civil proceedings many years down the line. They do not know whether they will be required to relive the traumatic events of, and defend their actions in, a conflict that took place many years previously.
That shadow endures because such potential proceedings are not always constrained by the passage of time. That is neither reasonable nor appropriate. However, it reflects the increased pattern of the judicialisation of warfare, evident over the last 25 years. Equally, we must take action to ensure that our commanders on the ground in the field of conflict, having to make potentially life-or-death split-second decisions, do not feel inhibited, or, worse, distracted, by concerns about how their actions may be perceived many years later—that is clearly profoundly undesirable.
Let me also be crystal clear that those who commit criminal acts or behave negligently must face justice and must expect to be called to account. However, that should be done without undue delay: periods of delay stretching over years are simply not acceptable. Delay does not serve the interests of the victims, for whom the most certain route to justice is to bring forward a criminal allegation or a claim for compensation as soon as possible before evidence disappears or becomes stale or before memories become opaque.
The Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill seeks to address these issues. It deals with the issue of unreasonable delay, but it also endeavours to provide greater certainty to our service personnel and veterans that the unique pressures—and they are unique—placed on them during overseas operations will be taken into account when decisions are being made as to whether to prosecute for alleged historical offences. These are the objectives that the Bill seeks to deliver.
I have been struck by commentary on the Bill: some people think it is necessary but does not go far enough, while others think it is unnecessary and goes too far. The Government have endeavoured to strike a balance that recognises the position of victims and our Armed Forces and seeks to be fair to both. In my discussions with many of your Lordships, I detect broad sympathy with the Bill’s objectives. I acknowledge that a number of your Lordships have concerns about some of the individual provisions in it and will wish to press the Government for clarification and reassurance as to how these will impact in practice. I look forward to this debate as an opportunity to explore these.
I make clear that the measures in this Bill are not the only work being taken forward in respect of these matters. The Government are progressing recommendations from the service justice system review, and the forthcoming Armed Forces Bill is expected to contain provisions relating to key recommendations from this. I am pleased to confirm to your Lordships that the review by Sir Richard Henriques of the conduct of investigations relating to overseas operations and the prosecutorial process, which was announced by the Secretary of State in October, is under way and due to report in the summer.
This is a journey that started in the early days of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it is important to recognise that we have already come a long way since then. That journey has involved intensive scrutiny and legal challenge, and both the service police and the Armed Forces have learned important lessons on better resourcing, supporting and professionalising investigations on operations. The Ministry of Defence is also constantly reviewing its policies, training and practices to help to ensure that we comply with all applicable legal obligations on future operations.
I turn to the Bill itself and what it seeks to deliver. First, it is important to be clear about what it does not do, because it seems to me that a somewhat distorted version of the Bill has achieved a degree of currency. The Bill is not an amnesty or a statute of limitations: prosecutions can still go forward after five years from the date of the alleged incident and it does not prevent allegations of offences being made and investigated after five years. There may be circumstances where victims are unable to report their allegations quickly after the event, and that is recognised. The Bill does not abolish, eradicate or eliminate the rights of victims of crime, nor does it deny the rights of those who seek redress in the civil courts, whether they are Armed Forces personnel, MoD employees or other parties.
I will move now to what the Bill does. Part 1 introduces measures dealing with criminal matters, which includes a presumption against prosecution where five or more years have passed since an alleged offence on an overseas operation. With Part 1, the Government have sought to strike a balance: on the one hand, introducing protective measures that set a high threshold for a prosecutor to determine whether a case should be prosecuted and ensure that the adverse impact of overseas operations will be given particular weight in favour of the service person or veteran; and, on the other hand, ensuring that, in circumstances where our service personnel fall short of the high standards of personal behaviour and conduct that is required and expected of them, they can still be held to account. This is one of the reasons that we have not proposed an amnesty or a statute of limitations. Let me be very clear: the presumption against prosecution after five years is not an absolute bar to prosecution. We have also sought to avoid fettering the prosecutor’s discretion in making a decision to prosecute and have ensured that the measures are compliant with international law.
Clause 1 sets out the circumstances in which the measures in Part 1 apply to decisions about whether or not to prosecute criminal cases. In short, the measures apply only once five years have elapsed from the date of an alleged offence by service personnel that took place on relevant overseas operations. For the purposes of Part 1, the Bill defines what constitutes relevant overseas operations.
Clause 2 introduces the presumption against prosecution, the effect of which is that it should be “exceptional” for a prosecutor to determine that a service person or veteran should be prosecuted for alleged offences that occurred on operations outside the UK more than five years previously. While the presumption introduces an “exceptional” threshold, it is important to note that the presumption is rebuttable; the prosecutor retains their discretion to determine that a case is exceptional and should be prosecuted.
Clause 3 requires the prosecutor to give particular weight to certain matters. These include the adverse impact of overseas operations on a service person, including on their mental health, and, in cases where there has already been a previous investigation and there is no new, compelling evidence, the public interest in cases coming to a timely conclusion.
Clause 5 requires the consent of the Attorney-General before a prosecution can proceed to trial. Clause 6 provides a definition of the “relevant offences” to which Part 1 applies and introduces Schedule 1, which lists the offences that are excluded from the presumption.
The offences listed in Schedule 1 reflect the Government’s strong position that there can be no conceivable link between operational duties and the use of sexual violence and sexual exploitation on overseas operations, and that the “exceptional” threshold in the Bill should not apply in such circumstances.
We have not excluded other offences, including torture, because, in the course of their duties on overseas operations, we expect our service personnel to undertake activities which are intrinsically violent in nature. Where service personnel are engaged in combat, detention and interrogations, they have faced and will continue to face allegations such as of torture and war crimes because of the unique nature of warfare. They may deny and refute these allegations, but they can still expect to face them.
Critics of the Bill believe that this signals that the Government no longer view with gravity offences such as war crimes and torture. Well, we most certainly do: these crimes are appalling and, as I have already emphasised, the prosecutor retains their discretion to determine that a case is exceptional and should be prosecuted.
The measures in Part 1 will not therefore allow service personnel to act with impunity; they do not impact on the willingness or ability of the United Kingdom to investigate or prosecute alleged offences committed by our service personnel. These measures are consistent with our international legal obligations and, as such, they will not put our service personnel at risk of being investigated by or prosecuted in the International Criminal Court.
Part 2 of the Bill makes changes to the time limits for bringing tort claims for personal injury or death, and Human Rights Act claims, relating to events that occur in connection with overseas operations. Again, the Government’s intent with the measures in Part 2 is to ensure that claims are brought promptly so that the courts are able to assess them when memories are fresh and evidence is more readily available. This will help to ensure that service personnel and veterans will not be called on indefinitely to recall often traumatic incidents that they have understandably sought to put behind them. It will also mean that, where such claims make allegations of criminal behaviour, these can also be considered expeditiously by the service police.
Clauses 8 to 10 introduce Schedules 2, 3 and 4, which introduce new factors that the courts in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland must consider when deciding whether a claim for personal injury or death can be allowed beyond the normal time limit of three years. These new factors ensure that the “operational context” in which incidents occurred is properly taken into account. They weigh up the likely impact of the proceedings on the mental health of the service personnel or veterans who may be called as witnesses.
The provisions also introduce an absolute maximum time limit of six years for such claims. For personal injury or death claims, that time limit will be calculated from the date of incident or from the claimant’s date of knowledge. The provisions also ensure that, where the law of another country is to be applied when the court is assessing the claim, the maximum time limit of six years still applies.
Clause 11 introduces three factors for the courts to consider when deciding whether to extend the one-year time limit for bringing Human Rights Act claims and an absolute maximum time limit of six years. It also introduces a date-of-knowledge provision for a Human Rights Act claim in connection with an overseas operation, so that it can be brought up to 12 months from the date of knowledge, even if that 12-month period ends after the six-year period has expired.
Finally, Clause 12 will further amend the Human Rights Act to impose a duty on government to consider derogating from—that is, suspending—some of our obligations under the ECHR in relation to significant overseas military operations. This measure does not require derogation to take place, but it requires future Governments to make a conscious decision as to whether derogation is appropriate in the light of the circumstances at the time. The Bill does not change any of the existing parliamentary oversight that currently applies to derogation orders.
These measures are consistent with court rulings that claimants do not need to be provided with an indefinite opportunity to obtain a remedy. Once again, the purpose of the limitation long-stops is to encourage individuals to bring claims promptly, while evidence and memories are fresh.
In conclusion, this a necessary and important Bill. It seeks to reduce the uncertainty faced by our service personnel and veterans and looks to the future, providing a better and clearer legal framework for dealing with allegations and claims arising from future overseas operations and recognising the unique burden and pressures placed on our service personnel. It strikes an appropriate balance between victims’ rights and access to justice on the one hand and fairness to those who defend this country and our values on the other. It delivers on a manifesto commitment by the Conservative Party to our Armed Forces and veterans. It is based on strong support for the proposals, as evidenced in the response to the public consultation and by clear majorities in the other place. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
Lord Touhig (Lab) [V]
My Lords, across this House, there is overwhelming support for Britain’s Armed Forces, and I echo the Minister by paying tribute to them. The British people value the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces. They value them for their total support at home battling Covid, and for protecting our country and securing our safety.
Britain’s Armed Forces are renowned for upholding international law and the highest standards of legal military conduct. It was Britain which led the way in establishing a rules-based international order after the Second World War. We were the champions of universal human rights and international law.
However, I fear that the thrust of this Bill puts that at risk and, sadly, it is part of a pattern: a pattern from the Government of disregarding international law and risking Britain’s reputation. Last year, the internal market Bill made headlines around the world for breaking international law and, as drafted, this Bill does the same. It calls into question Britain’s proud commitment to the Geneva conventions and undermines our role at the United Nations. It threatens our moral authority to require the conduct of other nations to meet the standards set by international conventions. But I do not despair because, as with the internal market Bill, this House can make a difference to this legislation.
At the outset, I want to make it clear that we recognise the need to protect our troops from vexatious claims. We have all heard stories of ex-servicemen being accused of committing the most awful crimes overseas, and of cases involving claims without any historical or truthful basis and their awful impact on the accused and their families. But this Bill will not put a stop to that.
I have no doubt about the honest ambition of the Veterans Minister in the other place to end vexatious claims, but last September he himself said that the Bill may—not will, but may—reduce the number of vexatious claims, a point that the Secretary of State for Defence made in a note to Members today. It does not cover Northern Ireland or tackle the cycle of reinvestigations, nor create a legal framework for the future. I make it clear that we welcome any opportunity to fix this flawed legislation and will work with colleagues on all sides to build a consensus—because outside Parliament, from the Royal British Legion to Liberty, people are desperate for us to get this right.
Labour’s aims are threefold: first, to protect British troops against vexatious claims and repeat investigations; secondly, to protect British troops and their rights to justice from the MoD itself; and, thirdly, to protect Britain’s reputation as a force for good in the world, upholding human rights and the rules-based international order.
Part 1 introduces a statutory presumption against the prosecution for any alleged offences committed while overseas more than five years previously, save for exceptional circumstances. There is a requirement that the consent of the Attorney-General is obtained if a prosecution is to proceed.
The Explanatory Notes state:
“Nothing in this Bill will stop those guilty of committing serious criminal acts from being prosecuted”,
but many disagree. Our own Delegated Powers Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said:
“These measures would appear to make prosecutions for ‘relevant offences’ much less likely.”
Many also have serious concerns about how this relates to Britain’s international legal obligations. Clearly, presumption risks breaching the Geneva convention, the convention against torture, the Rome statute, the European Convention on Human Rights and other long-standing international legal obligations. Indeed, presumptions against prosecution could even increase the risk of service personnel appearing before the International Criminal Court. That was made clear by the ICC prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda; in a statement on Iraq and the UK, she says that the ICC is:
“tasked with determining whether it should exercise its own competence in a criminal case, in place of a State … To do so, the ICC must be satisfied that no relevant proceedings have been undertaken, or … because the State is unwilling to do so”.
A very good friend of mine, a distinguished parliamentarian and Minister for the Armed Forces, Adam Ingram, asked me over the weekend this simple question: how will this Bill stop the ICC from prosecuting British service men and women? Perhaps the noble Baroness could provide an answer.
The Bill also explicitly excludes sexual violence from presumptions, but not torture or war crimes. Surely a British Government do not really want to decriminalise torture or war crimes.
Part 2 reveals a different motive. It is about reducing compensation paid out to troops and
“protecting the MOD, rather than the service personnel”.—[Official Report, Commons, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill Committee, 8/10/20; col. 86.]
Those are not my words but the words of the director-general of the Royal British Legion. The Bill removes the current discretion of the court to extend the time beyond six years for compensation claims for personal injury or death overseas. Over the past 15 years, for every 25 cases brought by injured British troops against the MoD, just one case was brought by alleged victims against our troops. Britain deployed 140,000 troops in Iraq over six years and, in 1,000 civil claims against the Government, the MoD paid compensation in just 330 cases. But the Government seem determined to limit access to the compensation that these men and women deserve. The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers said that this will give service personnel fewer rights than a prisoner. This Bill gives British service personnel fewer rights than a person convicted of a crime and serving a prison sentence. That cannot be right.
I draw the attention of the House to the case of Alistair Inglis, who received nearly £550,000 for hearing loss caused by a negligent exposure to noise while serving in the Royal Marines. This brave man served in Northern Ireland, the Gulf and Afghanistan, and left the forces because of his injuries. Only in 2014, seven years after he was first aware that he had a problem with his hearing, did he speak with a lawyer. If this Bill had been on the statute book then, he would probably not have got a penny. It is plain wrong that those who put their lives on the line for Britain should have less access to compensation than the British citizens that they are there to defend.
Furthermore, the Royal British Legion fears that Part 2 risks breaching the Armed Forces covenant. It says that it will prevent personnel holding the MoD to account if it fails to properly equip them, or when it makes serious errors that lead to death or injury.
Vexatious claims are a problem that needs to be solved, but in a lawful and effective way that does not trash Britain’s reputation and standing as a country that takes its international obligations seriously. But the Bill will not stop reinvestigations. Long-running litigation, repeat investigations and judicial reviews are signs of a flawed system that has failed British troops under successive Governments. Seventy percent of the complaints looked at by the Iraq Historic Allegations Team were rejected as there was no case to answer. In other words, those allegations did not warrant a full investigation, but they would have been wholly unaffected by the Bill had it been on the statute book then. Why? As Dr Julian Lewis MP pointed out in the other place, this Bill deals only with prosecutorial decisions and not investigations. The Government promised a review into this, but there have been three reviews in the past five years with more than 80 recommendations on investigations.
On this side, we believe that prosecutors should give weight to the quality and duration of relevant investigations when deciding whether to bring or continue proceedings. The Judge Advocate-General of the Armed Forces should determine whether new evidence is sufficient to grant reinvestigation. We will also argue for better case management, with cases brought before a judge in a specific period and setting, and target times for police investigations.
Many noble Lords want to take part in this debate, so I shall conclude my remarks. We want to build a consensus across the House to improve the Bill. To the Minister I say that we will work with you. Will you work with us to forge a constructive consensus on the changes needed to overhaul investigations; to set up safeguards against vexatious claims that are entirely consistent with our international obligations; and to guarantee troops the right to compensation when MoD failures lead to death or injury overseas? From these Benches, I can say that Labour and the Armed Forces ultimately want the same thing: to protect British troops and British values. Those are not Labour hopes alone: Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Cross-Benchers and non-aligned colleagues in this House all want that too. Working together, we have an opportunity to make a real and lasting difference. For God’s sake, let us take it.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and to assure him that we will stand with him in his opposition to the Bill.
It is a hot and sticky night in Iraq; in a small prefabricated, concrete guard hut, 20 men are detained by British soldiers. Their heads are hooded and their arms bound behind their backs. There is no battlefield stress—this is the secure British headquarters in Basra, and these are civilians. They are forced into stress positions, half-squatting without support. They cannot see, but they can certainly hear; they are yelled at and called “apes”. Their moans are orchestrated by their mocking captors into a choir, with a corporal in charge conducting them—literally. If they move from the stress positions they are struck, either with a stick or a fist. The smell is indescribable. Passing soldiers are invited into the hut to get their own punch in, and some do. The post mortem reveals 93 separate injuries to a man who died, Baha Mousa. That was the evidence I heard unfold at the court martial in Bulford.
Let us reverse the picture and suppose that the men being beaten are captured British soldiers. Every noble Lord can think of a young and enthusiastic serving soldier who risks that fate. Their captors say to them: “You do this to us; we will do it to you”. Let us wind the clock on in this scenario and suppose that the enemy state has investigated. It has taken its time, but it has identified the torturers—but their law follows the British precedent set by the Bill. They cannot be prosecuted, and the British soldiers cannot claim compensation because it all happened six years ago. There is no prosecution, no punishment and no compensation.
Veteran soldiers have been trained to go into battle, to face bullets and bombs on our behalf, but the Government suggest that questioning by a British court would be too stressful—too stressful for the soldiers to go into a witness box or the dock; they would have to relive horrific events, even if they have themselves caused or participated in them. Everything is wrong about this Bill. “We are against ‘lawfare’”, they say—legal constraints around armed conflict. What do they want, “unlawfare”? Is there a single noble and gallant Lord speaking today who will say that his decisions made in actual conflict were hampered by the Geneva conventions; that he would have acted differently if it were not for the law; that he would have tortured prisoners of war for information? War is a bloody and barbaric event. Western democracies have sought to curb its worst excesses. Is it to be the policy of Her Majesty’s Government to abandon those international standards and to give effective immunity against anything to her Armed Forces in the field? Can you abuse, shoot and kill not just the armed opposition but civilians like Baha Mousa, a hotelier, without any consequences at all?
Looking at the Bill, it is obvious that the Government have forgotten that there can be no prosecution without an investigation. It is two stages: investigation first, prosecution second. There is absolutely nothing in the Bill—no time limitation—which prevents an investigator knocking on the door of a veteran 30, 40 or 50 years after the event and arresting, interrogating and charging him. The Minister called it “corrosive uncertainty”. Well, that is stressful, but investigation may not seem worth the trouble. If the investigator has produced a file with sufficient evidence of, say, torture, to convict, the Bill obliges the director to ignore it. He must go straight to the second question: is it in the public interest? Regardless of the merits, the presumption against prosecution kicks in. Even if he decides to prosecute, he can be overruled by the political decision of the Attorney- General, which probably depends on how many people are protesting in Parliament Square.
There is an anomaly. Sexual offences are excluded from the presumption, so if a soldier tortures, rapes and kills a civilian, there is a presumption against prosecuting him for the torture and the murder but not for the rape. This is surely indefensible on any policy or moral basis. I hope that amendments to excise Part 1 entirely will be brought forward to preserve our moral leadership in the world, which is the passionate plea from Theresa May in today’s papers.
What about the five-year limitation period for criminal proceedings? Investigating what has happened in overseas operations is no easy task. Witnesses have to be found. There are language difficulties which can mislead an investigator. There are logistical difficulties in bringing witnesses to this country for the trial. I shall never forget the lady brought all the way from a dusty village in Iraq to give evidence to the 3 Para court martial in Colchester in 2005. She stepped into the witness box, took the oath on the Koran and addressed us. She said that now she had sworn on the Koran she had to tell the truth. The incident she had described to investigators, of a soldier ripping off her clothing, was entirely a figment of her imagination. Former Judge Advocate-General Jeff Blackett told the Commons Committee on the Bill that the two murder cases from Iraq in which he was the judge—the 3 Para and Marine A cases—had been brought to trial within two years of the events. It is not the prosecuting procedures which cause delay, it is protracted investigations, about which the Bill says nothing.
What signal does it send to an enemy if a Minister announces a derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights? Will Parliament have a say on the wilful killing or torture of prisoners? The Bill is silent. Does the Minister agree that such a serious step, of such danger to any of our troops falling into enemy hands, should be taken only with the consent of both Houses, on a vote, and that that should appear on the face of the Bill?
On the civil side of this litigation, the current system has not failed. Unmeritorious claims have been dismissed and Paul Shiner has been struck off the roll. That is over, but the Government have paid out some £32 million in compensation to claimants, mostly for allegations of torture during interrogation. In answer to my Written Question last June, the Minister herself replied:
“If … it is found that there is substance to the allegations and there has been negligence on our part, compensation is paid”—
£32 million. So all the claims that have been brought are not unmeritorious. The Government have settled rather than face a court hearing when the allegations can be publicly ventilated. The Bill does not protect veteran servicemen because they do not need protection. They are never involved in the proceedings, even as a witness, because it all happens in discussions in the robing room outside court—if it ever gets that far. It is surely wrong to pretend that immunity from suit is for veterans when, in practical terms, it only saves the Government paying out millions on claims which they would agree are meritorious.
The Bill is all wrong. It creates greater risks for currently serving soldiers, whose enemies will do unto us as we do to them. It destroys even further the British reputation for the rule of law and the upholding of human rights. It does not protect veterans from intrusive investigations years after the event. The International Criminal Court is watching us today. We promoted and ratified the Rome treaty, which binds us to it. It has no limitation period, no presumption against prosecution, no triple lock. It opened a dossier on the UK two years ago, to monitor whether we deal properly with war crimes such as torture. People may think that the court is concerned with Bosnian leaders or African dictators but, if the Bill goes through, we will one day suffer the ignominy of seeing a British serviceman dealt with by that court because our system has failed to bring him to justice. In the Baha Mousa murder trial, there was only one conviction: of the corporal who “conducted the choir”. He pleaded guilty to a war crime. That was the first ever, and the last, conviction of a British soldier for a war crime. He was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment.
Lord Dannatt (CB) [V]
My Lords, we have waited far too long for a Bill to be introduced that provides adequate protection for British service men and women to conduct operations free from the fear of retrospective investigation and possible prosecution—a justifiable fear that hangs over individuals for many years, or even decades, after events have taken place. Today we are debating a Bill that attempts to meet that requirement. As the Secretary of State for Defence said in introducing this Bill, it is,
“to protect our veterans against repeated reinvestigations where there is no new or compelling evidence against them, and to end vexatious claims against our Armed Forces.”
Although the Bill refers only to overseas operations, there are closely related issues with regard to Northern Ireland, about which noble Lords have frequently expressed their concern, not least in a debate in my name on 5 September 2018.
As much as we welcome this attempt to address the legislative aspiration by the Secretary of State and expanded on by the Minister just now, we have already heard from the noble Lords, Lord Touhig and Lord Thomas of Gresford, that the Bill, as currently drafted, does not meet the aim that it purports to satisfy. Although it has passed all its stages in the other place, many amendments were tabled and debated but rejected by the Government, whose majority in the House of Commons ensured that outcome. Moreover, there has been considerable criticism of the Bill outside Parliament, and our inboxes have been filled with briefings by well-respected commentators and professional groups, many urging that it be defeated or at least paused.
Here lies the dilemma: do we ultimately reject the Bill and lose the opportunity to provide the protection needed by our serving soldiers and veterans, or do we do our constitutional duty and seek to amend it, so that legitimate concerns are addressed, while ensuring that our servicepeople get the protection that they need? As parliamentary time, especially in the other place, is always at a premium, I am loath to give up the Bill, or even to pause it, and I therefore believe that the focus in this Chamber must be to amend the Bill to make it fit for its legitimate purpose.
Within the time constraints of this debate, I will raise three points. First, the Bill, which complements the Armed Forces covenant, needs to set out very clearly the Ministry of Defence’s standard of duty of care in relation to the legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations arising from overseas operations. If an example is needed as to why this is important, I refer to the case of Major Bob Campbell, who, along with two Royal Engineer colleagues, was investigated no fewer than eight times over 17 years before being exonerated. He is now a broken man, his career and health in ruins. He fell well outside any reasonable duty of care.
Secondly, the very sensible presumption against prosecution set out in Part 1 of the Bill needs to be more closely defined, removing the doubts that have been raised that such a presumption opens the way for cases such as rape and torture to go potentially unpunished. It has been argued that this presumption against prosecution is not needed because there have been very few prosecutions. But that is not the point. The point is that an outrageous number of allegations and investigations have proved groundless, thus resulting in very few prosecutions. It is well recorded that a virtual industry to pillory British soldiers was set up following the unpopular intervention in Iraq in 2003. As the Secretary of State for Defence has said, for example:
“In 2004, Phil Shiner, a lawyer, went fishing. He fished for stories, he fished for victims and he fished for terrorists.”—[Official Report, Commons, 23/9/20; col. 984.]
That conduct was completely unacceptable and Mr Shiner was quite properly struck off, but the damage to the reputation of the British Armed Forces had been done. Thus, a presumption against prosecution is a very reasonable safeguard, as is the five-year time limit, unless, of course, new and compelling evidence emerges. Those are the “exceptional circumstances” to which the Bill quite properly refers.
Thirdly, there is the relationship that the United Kingdom should have with international bodies to meet our wider obligations. The Bill suggests an amendment to the Human Rights Act 1998 to provide for the Secretary of State to consider whether it would be appropriate for the United Kingdom to make a derogation. While this has superficial attractions, I believe that—like the recent flirting in the internal markets Bill—the UK would run the risk of weakening our reputation as an upholder of international law and conventions. Moreover, such derogation could place the British soldier on the battlefield at even greater risk from his or her enemies, if international standards of conduct are overturned. War is a two-way exchange and actions have consequences.
I support the Bill, but it needs radical amendment to achieve its stated purpose.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt. I agree with his final conclusion and I agree, if I am right, with what the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, said. They both recognised that it is time to deal with this long-standing grievance, which was such a scar on our scenery at the time and has been so unfair to a lot of veterans and some serving soldiers, with the procession of investigations and attempted prosecutions, in often very difficult circumstances.
Some speeches have already indicated all the problems that arise with the Bill, but I admire and respect the Government and Ministers for having the courage at last to deal with this issue—to address it and not to duck it, as has happened for far too long.
I have one question to raise. The Bill of course deals with overseas operations, and one area in which a lot of these grievances arose is Northern Ireland. I hope that when she replies the Minister can make the position on that quite clear. I understand that a further Bill is possibly coming forward on Northern Ireland, but can she confirm the present position?
I also notice that there seems to have been a good deal of misrepresentation about what the Bill does. We know that some countries, faced with this difficulty, introduced amnesties and others introduced statutes of limitations. Of course, neither is suggested in this legislation, nor is the decriminalisation of serious crimes.
On the time limit, I do not think five years is unreasonable in the current climate, but it is a sensible provision that this is not necessarily an absolute time limit and can be exceeded if the prosecutor can demonstrate exceptional circumstances that justify prosecution after a longer period.
One area where I will be interested to hear the further discussion in Committee is that of why sexual relations are excluded but torture and war crimes are not. I hope that the Minister can reply on that and that this will come up in further discussions in Committee.
We have all lived with the history of some very unhappy investigations and tragic events that have affected some of our veterans, many of them quite unfairly, leading to much personal distress and family grievance. It is time that this was dealt with. It is also important because in some areas it undoubtedly has an impact on recruitment. There may be people who would think of joining the Armed Forces and putting themselves in harm’s way for the nation’s sake, but do not want to be treated in this way. Even more important, when we are living in a world of fake news as well as the world of social media, knowing what the truth really is in many circumstances is much more difficult. We need, therefore, to strengthen our defences, with proper protection and stewardship of those who serve our Armed Forces.
I join in the tributes paid to the quality of all those who go into some exceptionally nasty and dangerous circumstances—especially at the present time—in defence of our country and its interests. It is our duty as a legislature to make sure that, where they deserve protection, they get it. I therefore certainly support the progress of the Bill. It is very important not to abandon the stage—I think the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, suggested that it was almost too difficult. There must be a brave attempt to deal with this and establish at last an Act of Parliament to give proper protection against some of the grievances that we have faced.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth [V]
My Lords, reflecting on the Bill, its intentions and likely legal effect reminded me of something I learned during my time as chaplain of Wadham College, Oxford, during the febrile days of the 1980s. Wadham was then, as now, a crucible of intellectual innovation, not least in literary studies. Its senior English fellow then was Terry Eagleton, who interested himself in a method of criticism known as deconstruction. This meant, I think, that the story we thought we were reading or being told was undermined by another narrative hidden within the text, so what we might have thought meant one thing often meant something entirely different.
The Bill before the House represents a model of deconstruction. The Government’s stated intention is, as we heard in the gracious Speech,
“to tackle vexatious claims that undermine our Armed Forces”.
I regret to say that I cannot see how the Bill, as drafted, fulfils that intention. The Government may then deserve two cheers for acting when other Governments have not, but action is not the same as outcome. The good intentions of Ministers and their statements in Parliament and the media do not match what the Bill will do. The Bill would do what the Bill states, not what the Government would like it to do, or what an MoD press release announces as its objectives. I leave it to other noble Lords far better qualified than I to reflect on the very troubling risk that the Bill might lead to crimes of torture going unpunished as well as providing an attractive precedent for those countries that have historically accepted lower standards than our own.
But I would like to comment on one aspect of the Bill. I applaud the Government’s stated intention to protect service personnel from being hung out to dry under the risk of investigations over many years, but I wonder whether, as a matter of law, this Bill provides the protection that the Government seek. I doubt it does. Indeed, I worry that we risk offering false comfort to the men and women of our Armed Forces, who deserve our support.
Moreover, I am troubled that the effect of the Bill would be to reduce, indeed take away, the legal rights of our service personnel. That concern is shared, as we know, by the Royal British Legion. I say this because the Bill introduces a six-year time limit for bringing personal injury and human rights cases against the Government. Such an absolute prohibition does not apply to civilians, because the courts can use their discretion to extend the time limits available. This Bill, as it stands, would therefore mean that service personnel have fewer legal rights than civilians, while the Government are provided with an additional protection against what might be entirely deserving late claims.
Protecting the Ministry of Defence from legitimate claims might not be the Government’s intention, but it would be the effect of this Bill. That is a poor position for the Government to get into, and, to put it as gently as I can, it is difficult to see how it accords with the commitments the Government and we have made under the military covenant. Good intentions are one thing; bad law is another. This Bill, I say with deep regret —and understatement—is disappointing, and it would represent disappointingly poor law.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is an important Bill, but it has to be examined closely so that it does not create more problems than it sets out to solve. Ordinarily, I would almost instinctively be in favour of legislation that gave protection to our troops from vexatious legislation and the miseries of legal ambulance chasers. My association with the Armed Forces has left with me a huge respect and admiration for those who wear the British uniform and the crucial civilians who support them. In my time as Secretary of State for Defence, I had to issue orders to deploy troops abroad, and I shouldered that responsibility with enormous care and sensitivity.
I fear that aspects of this legislation suffer from the law of unintended consequences. In a brief speech, I can only mention a few of my reservations about this Bill. First, I believe that this is the first time in legal history in this country that a specific group of citizens will be the subject of a statute of impunity. There may in some people’s minds be a justification for such a break with such long-standing tradition and precedent. However, I personally do not think that curtailing the rights of vexatious lawyers justifies that kind of unprecedented change. Even if there were justification, there needs to be a much bigger, more profound debate on the import of this kind of decision, occasioned by this kind of Bill.
Secondly, I strongly agree with those in the Commons, and in this debate, and in the country, who cannot see the justification for exempting torture and war crimes from the list in the Bill. By including torture and war crimes, this new apparent statute of impunity seems incongruous and indefensible. My own former Chief of Defence, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, has made it clear in an open letter to the Times, and in articles, that torture is indefensible in a civilised military, as well as ineffective as a tactic. We should listen to his wise words and those of the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, who has just spoken, as well.
My third objection—here, the law of unintended consequences really comes into its own—is that the International Criminal Court will now claim jurisdiction for the first time in Britain because we have introduced these apparent immunities. I was in Government when we signed up to the International Criminal Court; we did so safe in the knowledge that the integrity of our fair, impartial legal system would mean that the ICC could not act against our troops in conflict. I fear that the changes in UK law in this Bill would render our forces liable to be investigated and potentially prosecuted by the International Criminal Court. We now know that the ICC prosecutor has already made that point—that threat—as well.
The Policy Exchange is the Government’s go-to think tank, and this week it published a document with a foreword by Lieutenant-General Sir Graeme Lamb, who said,
“good intentions are not enough as the Bill as it stands may fail to protect our troops adequately.”
We do a disservice to our troops, now and in the future, if we put them on a different legal basis to the society they represent and defend. We can and should make improvements in this House. The Government should take some time before they bring the Bill back to consider it. In that way, we might avoid that iron law of unintended consequences. We have a duty to do so.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
My Lords, it may be that this Bill was well intended—to protect those in our Armed Forces who may be subject to vexatious claims. We certainly owe those Armed Forces a huge debt of gratitude. But I do not think I have ever participated in a piece of legislation which is so evidently flawed, except perhaps the Brexit Bill which sought to break international law. What legal advice did the Government receive? Did they override it?
The noble Baroness is a formidable Minister, and she will not want her reputation tarnished. There was much in the introductory general remarks to her speech with which we would all agree, but not when she got into the details of the Bill. I am sure she recognises this. I think the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth hit the nail on the head. He said that the Bill will do what is stated within the Bill, not what the Government would like it to do—or, I might add, what they hope it will do.
This morning, we received a defensive note, not from the Minister, or the Bill team, but a politically and newly appointed special adviser. That says to me that the MoD knows the mistake it is making here. I note the devastating critique by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and its conclusion that simply tabling this Bill has already damaged the reputation of the Armed Forces and the United Kingdom internationally.
I am used to receiving requests that Bills should be amended. I am not used to receiving requests that the whole Bill be thrown out. But that is what is being requested by Liberty and Amnesty International among others, and they know a thing or two about the importance of international law and how it has been painstakingly built up over time to protect us all, including our military forces, of which we expect so much.
We are often warned about the Dangerous Dogs Act as being legislation rushed through in response to an event which does not achieve what is sought but, most of all, has negative consequences. The noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, identified that we have another such Bill here. We seem to be dealing in particular with the unacceptable practice of a corrupt solicitor, Phil Shiner. In the other place, my right honourable friend Alistair Carmichael recommended building “an easy consensus”, as he put it, on acting against vexatious civil claims, starting with engagement with the regulatory authorities in the legal profession. I note here that Phil Shiner was struck off.
Instead, we have the Bill, with its potential to damage our military, potential victims and standing in the world, and break our commitment once again to international law. On the day that President Biden is sworn in, are we choosing this moment to step aside from international law? The implication surely is not that we believe in British exceptionalism: that our troops should not be subject to international law, as others are. I expect the Chinese Communist Party and Putin think that of theirs. Trump certainly thought that of his followers.
As the Bingham Centre and others have pointed out, the Bill undermines the basic concept that we are all subject to the law, no matter who we are. It makes it harder for victims to access justice. Grave war crimes face substantial legal barriers before there could be a prosecution. The exception for crimes committed against British soldiers undermines equality before the law, giving our victims more rights than others. The Bill grants a veto on prosecutions after the five-year mark to the Attorney-General. This undermines the value of our independent prosecution service—[Inaudible]—interference, as my noble friend Lord Thomas pointed out.
If we fail properly to investigate, we are breaching our domestic and international obligations under the Geneva conventions and the UN Convention against Torture. Having, in effect, a statute of limitations here makes it more likely that British soldiers will be prosecuted by the ICC, as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, wisely pointed out. It even makes it harder for anyone—civilian or soldier—to hold the MoD to account, as my noble friend Lord Thomas and the right reverend Prelate pointed out.
The Minister emphasises that exemptions do not have to be taken. But where there are those possibilities in the legislation, that is the risk. The Government have much they say they wish to do to build back better after the pandemic. This Bill has so many flaws that it should not be taking up our time. Whether it can be made into useful legislation surely has to be a moot point. The risk is that amendments passed in the Lords and large sections taken out of the Bill may be overturned in the Commons, given the Government’s majority. We should all be acutely aware of that risk.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, there are indeed various reasons to be concerned about the Bill but I should like to concentrate on two of them: the omission of torture from the list of offences which are excluded from the restrictions on prosecution in Part 1, and the duty to consider derogation from the convention in Clause 12. In doing so, I am drawing on my experience when I was sitting as a member of the Appellate Committee of this House in the cases of Pinochet in 1999, which was brought under the torture convention, and A v the Secretary of State in 2004, in which we held that a derogation order allowing for indefinite detention should be quashed.
Prohibition of the crime of torture has been recognised for many decades as one of the most fundamental obligations of the international community. It cannot be derogated from in any circumstances and all nations have an equal interest in the apprehension and prosecution of the offenders. In 1987 the UN Convention against Torture, which the United Kingdom did much to promote, came into force. One of its achievements is to prevent evasion of punishment by the torturer moving from one state to another. This is because article 5 requires each state party not only to establish its jurisdiction over torture when the alleged offender is a national of that state, but to take jurisdiction over any alleged offender who is found within its territory. This is an international crime against which there is no safe haven.
For us to apply the measures listed in Part 1 of the Bill, the practical effect of which would, at the least, risk conferring immunity on the torturer after five years, would run counter to everything that the convention stands for. For that to happen would be a manifest breach of international law. As for the offender, such immunity as he may obtain in this country would be no protection against his being brought to justice elsewhere, as Senator Pinochet was to discover. It is not only the risk of having to face the International Criminal Court; it is the risk of being prosecuted for his crime in any other state that is a party to the convention to which he may go. The damage to our reputation, if that humiliating situation were to occur, would be incalculable. How could we be taken seriously in our attempts to promote the rule of law in those countries that least respect it? Torture should be on the list of exclusions.
Article 15 of the convention on human rights allows the state to
“take measures derogating from its obligations … In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation”
but only to the extent that this is “strictly required”. The words
“threatening the life of the nation”
are understood to mean an exceptional situation of crisis or emergency which affects the whole population and constitutes a threat to the organised life of the community. The standard that these words set is very high. Furthermore, derogation from protection of the right to life, for which we should note our own Armed Services personnel may also benefit, is permitted only for lawful acts of war, and no derogation at all is permitted from the prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading punishment. This leaves the right to liberty, derogation from which would allow indefinite detention without charge, as the Secretary of State looked for in the case of A.
We are concerned in this Bill only with overseas operations, in which members of the Armed Forces come under attack or face the threat of attack or violent resistance. It seems that the need to conduct operations overseas, however significant, is very unlikely on its own to meet the test for derogation. Could it be said in these circumstances that the Secretary of State was facing a crisis or emergency which affects the whole population of this country and constitutes a threat to the organised life of the community? If not, prompting him nevertheless to consider derogation from the convention would be pointless, as the attempt would fail. In any event, do we really think that the Secretary of State would need to be reminded of this provision if the extreme situation that really does justify derogation were to occur? This clause looks like mere window-dressing. I suggest that it should be removed from the Bill.
Lord Garnier (Con) [V]
My Lords, the speech just given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, was characteristically clear and compelling. I hope that in Committee we can expand on what he has brought to us. On 20 July last year my noble friend the Minister, whom I thank for her opening remarks today and for her helpful briefing on the Bill last week, repeated an Answer given in the other place to an Urgent Question about this Bill. In essence, my noble friend said that the policy behind the Bill was to protect our Armed Forces from being relentlessly harassed by investigations into their alleged conduct when on dangerous overseas operations, often many years ago. She said that the Government wanted to be fair to complainants and to the military personnel under investigation, hence the provisions in the Bill; she said as much again today.
I understand the policy. I can think of nothing worse for a serving or retired member of the Armed Forces of any rank than to have to live under the shadow of prolonged investigations to do with operations in Kenya, Northern Ireland—although that is not in the Bill—Iraq or Afghanistan, never knowing whether being absolved of blame meant the end of the matter or was the prelude to a new investigation. Lasting exoneration on the one hand, and a just but concluded finding of civil or criminal liability on the other, are essential in these matters. Justice and the public interest demand finality. Delay and uncertainty sap a soldier’s peace of mind and entitlement to finality; nor do they assist the complainant.
Although I listened with care to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I will support the Bill today. That said, I am not convinced that, having posed the right question, the Government have arrived at the right answer to the problem. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, I see this as a Bill that promises more than it can deliver. While its proponents are well motivated, I am fearful that expectations will be disappointed. It will need close scrutiny hereafter.
In this short contribution, I cannot cover every part of the Bill so I will concentrate on Part 1. But before doing so, when my noble friend the Minister comes to wind up, can she define the word “significant”, which is to be inserted by Clause 12 into Section 14A of the Human Rights Act? Last July I asked my noble friend why, if the factors set out in Clause 3 that support a decision not to prosecute five years after an offence are so powerful, they do not apply before five years have elapsed. I was told that they do, but not in statutory form.
We do not have limitation periods in our criminal law and, properly considered, this Bill does not introduce one. However, some may be confused into thinking that Clause 1(4) means that after five years there is immunity from prosecution. It does not and there is not. Under this Bill, certain crimes committed by service personnel on overseas operations can be prosecuted long after the event, so long as the Attorney-General consents and the statutory considerations have been undertaken. The need for exceptionality in Clause 2 is not going to prevent a 75 year-old veteran being prosecuted many years hence on a charge of torturing or murdering a prisoner or committing war crimes 50 years before—nor should it. But, rather than allowing people to get the impression that the Bill will create a new regime when it will not, why not just be straight- forward?
Instead of these complicated provisions, we should provide that, no matter when the offence took place, there can be a prosecution with regard to an overseas operation only with the consent of the Attorney-General in England and Wales or the Lord Advocate in Scotland. Clause 5(3)(b) refers to the consent of the Advocate-General for Northern Ireland for proceedings under the law of that jurisdiction. That office is held coterminously by the Attorney-General, not by a Northern Ireland law officer, but in all UK jurisdictions the relevant law officer’s consent should be required for a prosecution at all times and not just after five years.
It is not—and here, as a former Solicitor-General, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford —the political decision of a political Minister, but a legal decision of an independent law officer. Political convenience or the Government’s preferences are irrelevant. I note that presently the Bill does not appear to require the Lord Advocate’s consent for a Scottish law prosecution five years after the event. The same requirement should apply across the whole of the United Kingdom. This simpler approach means that the relevant law officer will always apply the prosecutors’ code before initiating a prosecution to ensure that there is both a sufficiency of evidence and that it is in the public interest to prosecute.
The matters in Clause 3, which are to be given particular weight, can be considered under the public interest limb of the code either side of a five-year timeline. It is not necessary, still less permissible, to rape or sexually abuse anybody, military or civilian, in pursuit of a military objective, so crimes of that nature are rightly excluded from the Bill’s current qualifications on a prosecution. While I heard the Minister’s explanation of why torture is not to be excluded, I hope, like my noble friend Lord King, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that in Committee we will be able to test that reasoning more fully than we can today.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is indeed unfortunate that the Government did not reach across this House in constructing this piece of legislation, as my noble friend Lord Touhig said. It has been clear this afternoon that there is a range of respect for, and also knowledge of, our armed services that should have been in the mix as this Bill was put together. I was pretty shocked when I read the remarks of the Advocate-General, the most senior judge in the armed services, that the Bill is “ill-conceived” and
“brings the UK armed forces into disrepute.”
I am not a lawyer and I had intended to concentrate my remarks on Clause 2 of the Bill. Before I do that, I have to say I have a particular concern that the Bill does not take into account the repeated reinvestigation of cases. That must have a much greater impact on the mental health of those who are the subject of accusations, as the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, pointed out, than the timescale for complaints. The MoD investigation effort is underresourced, insufficiently independent and not timely. This point was made with some force by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has now said that there will be an ongoing opportunity to investigate that, but it should have been done before the Bill was put together and it should have been acknowledged in the Commons.
I move now to Clause 2. This is a clear area where Armed Forces personnel and their families are very much at a disadvantage compared with civilians who have similar complaints against other employers. As outlined by others, there is a complete cliff-edge at six years that the MoD has set. According to the MoD it promotes “greater protection”, but in reality it means less protection for the armed service personnel and more protection for the Ministry of Defence. In some cases, health conditions show up only at death. Asbestosis is one such case and there are other conditions, such as PTSD and deafness, that can take many years to show up. Why should the MoD as an employer get off scot free from claims that do not show up to a timetable? We all have a duty of care to our service men and women, and I am surprised that this was not amended when it was exposed in the House of Commons. Indeed, no amendments were passed in the House of Commons, and that is why I feel very concerned about the ability of this House to bring about amendments.
Like many others, I received a very helpful briefing from the Royal British Legion which shows that 500 claims have been made since the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, some of them by bereaved families. It makes the very specific point that safeguards already exist to ensure that claims brought forward are judged appropriate.
Others have referred to the Armed Forces covenant. There is a specific clause in it that says members of the Armed Forces
“should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens.”
During the passage of this Bill in the Commons, it was suggested that the principle of no disadvantage in the covenant could not apply when comparing those injured or bereaved as a result of overseas operations with the general civilian population. But no caveat such as that exists, and nor should it exist—and it certainly was not in the Armed Forces Act 2011 that brought the Armed Forces covenant together. The covenant explicitly states that those who are injured or bereaved are additionally eligible for special recognition as they have given most in service and should be given greater, rather than lesser, protection.
In the passage of this Bill in this House, we have the opportunity to amend it and make it a better Bill. I would like to see us do that, but we need the humanity that should exist in the House of Commons to make sure that it is passed again. It is very unfair to our armed services, and God forbid that any one of us should suffer some of the disadvantage we see outlined in the background to the Bill.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]
My Lords, in general I welcome this Bill, insofar as it seeks to provide fair protection to our armed personnel who served overseas from vexatious and repeated investigations long after they have served. Whether it actually does this is open to question, and many believe that it promises more than it can deliver—but we shall surely examine that in our debate.
In this Bill, the threshold for prosecution of current and former personnel is raised for alleged offences committed on operations outside the British Isles more than five years ago. I join with the Minister in paying tribute to the bravery of our serving personnel and the burden their families carry when they are on duty.
For those of us from Northern Ireland, our genuine concern is not so much what is in the Bill but what is not in it. Missing from this Bill is equal protection for those brave service men and women who served in Northern Ireland, facing a vicious and evil onslaught from the IRA. Government Ministers in the other place have pledged to progress the principle of equal treatment, but their actions to date have certainly not matched the spirit of their promises.
In March 2020, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Brandon Lewis, made this Statement to coincide with the introduction of the overseas operations Bill:
“Today the Government announced the introduction of legislation to provide greater certainty for service personnel and veterans who serve in armed conflicts overseas. Alongside this, we are setting out how we propose to address the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland in a way that focuses on reconciliation, delivers for victims, and ends the cycle of reinvestigations into the Troubles in Northern Ireland that has failed victims and veterans alike—ensuring equal treatment of Northern Ireland veterans and those who served overseas.”—[Official Report, Commons, 18/3/20; col. 168WS.]
During debate on this Bill in the other place, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Johnny Mercer said:
“We are very clear that we will not leave Northern Ireland veterans behind. The commitment of equal treatment in any Northern Ireland Bill that comes forward will be absolutely adhered to. This Government will not resile from their commitments to those individuals. We recognise, value and cherish the service and sacrifice of everyone who served in those operations.”—[Official Report, Commons, 23/9/20; col. 1022.]
We are told that Northern Ireland’s absence from the Bill is largely down to differences in the legal framework in which soldiers in Northern Ireland operated compared to those operating outside UK jurisdiction. However, this can often be misconstrued. It is vital that noble Lords recognise the valiant service and sacrifice of those who fought to keep peace for so many years in Northern Ireland, bring stability and protect democracy in our Province. I suggest that this is no different from those who defend our interests abroad. Our nation entered into a covenant with members of our Armed Forces; it ought to apply equally in scope and content to all personnel, regardless of where they serve. The progression of this Bill without legislation granting the same protection to our Northern Ireland veterans is wholly unacceptable.
My colleagues and I have often stressed that we do not support an amnesty or any equivalence of our soldiers with paramilitaries. That is why we cannot support the Government’s insistence on the need to separate Northern Ireland legacy issues from the overseas operations Bill. This serves only to differentiate or set apart the service of men and women in Northern Ireland from the sacrifice of our Armed Forces elsewhere, which could be considered discrediting to their contribution.
Let me be clear: I do not support an amnesty for soldiers who have committed criminal acts, but I am deeply concerned about the practice of veterans in their senior years being arrested and brought to Northern Ireland to respond to allegations which have already been investigated, often on multiple occasions, and for which no new compelling evidence is provided. In my humble opinion, that is persecution of our veterans. It is an intolerable burden to place on those veterans who ought to be enjoying, in their later years, the appreciation we give to their sterling service.
I have listened and will listen carefully to other noble Lords as they point out weaknesses and flaws in this Bill. I will certainly give them genuine consideration. I hope that, together, we can take forward legislation that is worthy of our support.
Lord Burnett (LD) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my entries in the register of interests. I had the honour to serve in the Royal Marines, during which time I was involved in overseas operations.
Before I speak to the Bill, I will highlight matters relevant to it, in relation to courts martial, which I believe should be changed. These matters arise from the successful campaign to rectify the terrible miscarriage of justice in the case of Marine A, to which my noble friend Lord Thomas referred. His name is Sergeant Blackman, then of 42 Commando, Royal Marines. He is an exemplary individual. I have referred to these matters in the House before; I should remind the House that, in the seven years or so leading up to the incident, Sergeant Blackman had been deployed on operational service six times in Iraq and Afghanistan— six six-month tours of intensive combat operations in seven years. No one in the Royal Marines complains of that level of deployment, but the Court Martial Appeal Court recognised that this causes great stress for even the best-trained, bravest and most determined of our elite troops. These are individuals of the highest calibre, who deprecate any torture or war crimes.
I will reiterate what I have said before. First, when charges such as these are contemplated, no expense should be spared in mentoring and assisting a defendant, who will need an experienced individual to guide him through the maze of criminal law and procedure. The defendant should have access to the very best legal team available and be able to access medical assistance to engage with the effect of the stress of operations, including being in mortal danger most of the time, and often in searing heat. This should all be at public expense.
Secondly, there should be a duty on the Judge Advocate-General to bring the possibility of battle fatigue and diminished responsibility to the attention of the panel.
Thirdly, and most importantly, a simple majority at a court martial can convict a person; in Sergeant Blackman’s case, five of the panel found him guilty and two found him not guilty. This would be insufficient for a conviction in a civilian criminal court. The court martial majority rule should be changed to follow the civilian criminal law standard.
Fourthly, the ethos of a court martial is that a person is supposed to be tried by his peers who have served in similar combat operations as the defendant, and who therefore appreciate the burdens and demands of such operations. No one who has not served through the horrors of the front line in Iraq and Afghanistan or similar conditions can appreciate the stresses and dangers that will affect even the strongest and best-trained human being. All members of the panel in a court martial should have had similar experiences to those of the defendant. No one who has never heard a shot fired in anger should be on the panel of any combat military personnel. Fifth, and finally, panel members should be drawn from suitable people of all ranks.
I have considerable sympathy for the Bill in that it seeks to overcome problems, but I have grave concerns about some of the solutions it proposes. The Access to Justice Act 1999 greatly extended the scope for conditional fee agreements. Basically, the lawyer is paid on a no-win no-fee basis; if there is a win, the lawyer receives considerably more money. Therefore, the lawyer has a substantial financial stake in the outcome. This has tempted a number of lawyers to trawl for work in countries where service personnel were deployed, sometimes many decades ago. There are cases where evidence has been fabricated and individual complainants have sometimes been bribed to perjure themselves. The lives of innocent serving and retired personnel have been ruined. The Government should examine the extent, consequences and impact of these conditional fee agreements.
It deserves to be emphasised that the vast majority of members of our Armed Forces have exemplary standards and give fantastic service to this country. There can occasionally be an individual who falls short of these high standards and blemishes the wonderful service given by so many.
I am concerned about the short time limit for making claims and the fact that these claims often arise from long-term conflicts, where it takes time for the dust to settle. I believe the time limit should be extended. I agree that sexual offences should have continuing liability—so should torture and war crimes. Furthermore, I am concerned by the relatively short time limits sought to be imposed on the service personnel’s ability to sue the Ministry of Defence.
Finally, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all members of our Armed Forces and their families, who give such courageous, unselfish and superb service to our country.
Baroness Buscombe (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare several interests: a son serving in the Fleet Air Arm; as a recent former Lords Minister with responsibility for the Armed Forces and veterans at the Department for Work and Pensions; and as a barrister, not proud of those in my profession who have profited from vexatious claims, making life pure hell for some of our courageous veterans.
As a past member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I have an abiding memory of its current chair either failing or refusing to understand the import of what the then Secretary of State, Michael Fallon, was saying as he explained the very high bar for process and protocols that the MoD and our Armed Forces must meet against a tight timeframe prior to making the decision to release an unmanned missile.
It is abundantly clear to me, having read recommendation 8 of its report on the Bill, that the JCHR still cannot or will not accept that life can be very different for the military. One cannot begin to compare the environment, actions, challenges and decisions that, in real time, face our military on overseas operations with that of a civilian’s life choices. The Bill strikes a proportionate balance between the rights of genuine victims’ access to justice in a reasonable time and fairness to those who defend our country. A good starting point should be: what is proportionate, what is the environment within which an action is taking place, and what is reasonable in all the circumstances?
The Bill is about raising the threshold of prosecution to reduce the likelihood of investigations being repeatedly reopened without new and compelling evidence. Our rules of engagement for our Armed Forces are extraordinarily stringent and, as it is, we send our young into battle with one-and-half arms tied behind their backs, sometimes in the most appalling conditions. In order to satisfy tough but necessary rules of engagement, our serving men and women understand entirely that they are not above the law, and the Bill is not about any immunity from the law. In short, this Bill does not allow our Armed Forces personnel to act with impunity.
In addition, recommendation 13 of the JCHR report demonstrates a lamentable lack of knowledge of life in the Armed Forces. Believe me, Armed Forces personnel are constantly at risk of being stepped down from duties if they show the slightest sign of illness, physical or mental. I urge all noble Lords to read the government responses to the JCHR report. So much of military life is nuanced, and that is the nub of why the Bill is before us—and rightly so. It is not perfect, but it is a symbolic step in the right direction.
Concern was expressed in another place regarding the exclusion of torture from Part 1 of the Bill. In addition to the Government’s clear response on this matter, I refer to paragraph 2.2435 of The Report of the Al-Sweady Inquiry, which I attended briefly. It provides a stark example of why the issue of torture is not clear-cut. It illustrates the utterly dreadful impact of modern weaponry, which can undeniably create a presumption of torture in the eyes of anyone unaccustomed to seeing bodies following battle—most particularly their families. I make that point simply to emphasise the brutal and nuanced reality of combat. Torture is never, ever acceptable, and the Bill does not in any way undermine the UK’s adherence to the UN Convention Against Torture, its commitment to international law or its willingness to investigate and prosecute any alleged criminal offences.
I have two questions for my noble friend the Minister. First, what is the latest thinking at the MoD regarding the issue of investigations being fully addressed in the Bill? Secondly, with reference to the definition of “overseas operations” as it applies throughout the Bill, does it include operations beyond our territorial waters—for example, acts of piracy and the seizure of drugs and other contraband?
In conclusion, in paying tribute to the heartening, intelligent and articulate voices of our ex-Armed Forces Members in another place, I shall quote the honourable Member for Bracknell, James Sunderland, who, when referring to Armed Forces personnel, said:
“They aspire to better protected in law. They want to know … they will be supported if they pull the trigger lawfully and, after the misery of the ambulance-chasing years, they want the threshold for prosecution to be raised so that the endless knocks at the door finally stop. This is a no-brainer.”—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/20; col. 239.]
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. She made a clear and compelling case for the Bill. One thing on which I agree with her is that we need clarity, so that troops and former troops who have served our country well have clarity.
I thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for engaging with Members of the House who wish to engage with her on the Bill. It has been helpful and, if I may say so, she is a remarkably good listener. I want to add to her tribute to Her Majesty’s forces. As is clear from my entry on the Register of Members’ Interests, I have a connection with the Royal Navy for a charity that I chair and I very much wish to ensure that we do the best that we can for all those who so courageously serve their country. We need to take all reasonable and proportionate steps to protect them against injustice. I fear, however, that the Bill, in its present form at least, fails to do just that.
The Bill has its origins in a 2013 report by the respected think tank, Policy Exchange. I look forward to its director, my great friend Dr Dean Godson’s arrival in this House, I believe in early February. His interventions in future stages of the Bill could well be instructive. Yesterday, Policy Exchange issued a document entitled, Ten Ways to Improve the Overseas Operations Bill. I take that as recognition by Policy Exchange, seven years after its report, The Fog of Law, of 10 material deficiencies in the Bill. It is a little shocking that after a gestation of seven years, with all the scans, scrutiny and consideration that it will have had, the Bill comes to this House having left the Commons with so many deficiencies.
What Policy Exchange highlights fairly is that, for all the cases envisaged to be dealt with, there must be efficiency, expedition and fairness. Unfortunately, I cannot accept at least five of its 10 suggested improvements to the Bill. For example, Policy Exchange has suggested changes in the approach to the public interest test for prosecution but appears to have done so without even having taken the elementary step of carefully reading paragraphs 4.9 to 4.13 of the Crown Prosecution Service code dealing with the public interest test. Clear care is already taken with such decisions and it is possible in exceptional circumstances for a public interest decision to be taken before examination of the evidence. Policy Exchange has suggested the Attorney-General’s consent to prosecutions. I listened with enormous respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, who is a former law officer, and an excellent one. I admire him enormously. However, I wonder why the independent Director of Public Prosecutions, who is appropriately accountable to the law officers, is not sufficiently independent to make the requisite decisions.
I suggest to your Lordships that, despite a seven-year gestation period, this Bill is far from being oven-ready, to coin a phrase. It still has many deficiencies, as Policy Exchange has recognised, and will need concentrated work in Committee if it is to be given a Third Reading. I am grateful to the highly respected Bingham Centre, which has made thoughtful and well- argued criticisms, with which I agree—one of which is that the Bill undermines our obligations under the Geneva conventions and the UN Convention Against Torture, and this would take us outside international law. I commend to your Lordships the Bingham Centre’s rule of law concerns about the Bill.
In truth, the Bill as it stands would diminish the United Kingdom’s enviable reputation for adherence to the rule of law. We cannot accept that in your Lordships’ House. Major amendment is required.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, a soldier is not as other men. When he thinks that he is, he ceases to be their guardian. I was told many years ago that that was a quotation from Julius Caesar. I have tried to verify it, but I am afraid that I could not find it, so it may not be a quote. However, it is apposite because it shows that we expect higher standards from our soldiers.
In this debate, I should like to put the Bill in some context, using examples—some of which will be from Northern Ireland, of which I have some personal experience, although it is not in the Bill. The context is both complex and confused. We—that is, this Parliament —send young people of 18 and 19 years of age into an alien environment in which people who are not in military uniform but in civilian clothes are trying to kill them. All civilians are therefore suspect because we cannot identify terrorists. We send the soldiers to protect us and the national interest, often in ghastly and uncomfortable conditions. We expect them to carry out their duty at our behest. So let us start by being grateful. I should declare a family interest in that my son recently passed out of Sandhurst.
Soldiers are not perfect but they usually try their best. They are not lawyers with many years of study and training. They are not policemen. They are trained to defend us by killing people, if necessary, with rifles and bayonets; that is why they have them. Training is mandatory in the Geneva conventions and the law of armed conflict. Every solider knows, for instance, that torture is illegal. When I was in Northern Ireland, we used to have a yellow card that told you when you could open fire. There are always rules of engagement, and the watchword is “restraint”.
I want to give two examples from Northern Ireland. The first is the pitchfork murders, carried out near Newtownbutler in Fermanagh in October 1972 by soldiers of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. They had lost eight men, murdered on a four-month tour. Newtownbutler itself saw five murders in the preceding seven months, including those of a Garda instructor, off-duty local soldiers and Protestants. Nothing excuses these murders. When, finally—after several years—the ex-solider murderers were convicted, they were rightly jailed for life. However, the context is relevant. Nobody has been tried for a huge number of the murders of soldiers, UDR and policemen in Northern Ireland, some of whom were friends of mine.
My second example is particularly pertinent to this debate: the murders in March 1988 of Corporals Howes and Wood, who inadvertently drove into a funeral in Andersonstown. When trying the murderers, the judge described the murders as “particularly savage and vicious”. Both corporals had 9 millimetre pistols but were uncertain whether they could use them when surrounded by a screaming mob, which included IRA gunmen. These soldiers did not shoot the 20-odd people they could have done if they had been so minded.
I also have two examples from Iraq. The first is the Battle of Majar al-Kabir, where six Royal Military Policemen, each armed with 50 rounds, were killed in June 2003. They were surrounded by a hostile crowd of some 600 people, including the gunmen who shot them in the end. They were murdered because the RMP’s standard operating procedures do not include firing on a crowd.
The second example is that of Trooper Williams, who in August 2003 was in a patrol that stopped a group of Iraqis pushing a cart full of mines and ammunition. A scuffle ensued and 18 year-old Williams shot a man whom he believed to be about to shoot another solider. This was properly investigated by the Special Investigations Branch and the Army Legal Services Branch advised that there was no case to answer, so it was dismissed. However, the Adjutant-General later wrote a letter in March 2004, saying:
“With the current legal, political and ginger-group interests in the deaths of Iraqi civilians … there is a significant possibility that … our investigation and subsequent failure to offer for prosecution could become a cause célèbre for pressure groups.”
Williams was put on open arrest for a year before being tried in the High Court. For a 19 year-old boy, it was pretty traumatic. When he finally got to court, on day one, the Crown offered no evidence and Mrs Justice Hallett formally acquitted him.
Finally, I refer to a well-known case that has already been mentioned: that of Sergeant Blackman, who was filmed as he criminally and foolishly shot a Taliban fighter—who was probably dying anyway—saying, “Shuffle off this mortal coil.” More than 400 British soldiers may have been killed by the Taliban and he may have been under huge stress and pressure—he had seen comrades blown to pieces—but he was rightly tried and sentenced for his crime.
These and other cases, which are sometimes confusing, mean that young soldiers now spend a long time debating when they may open fire. When I worked in the MoD under the coalition Government, the appalling Phil—not Paul—Shiner and other lawyers were scouring Iraq and using public money to fund spurious cases against soldiers. Shiner was found to have been paying people to bring vexatious complaints, and some allegations were found to be “deliberate and calculated lies”. In Northern Ireland, which is not part of the Bill, Sinn Féin and the IRA are pursuing 14 year-old cases against soldiers. The IRA is now winning the peace.
So, on the one hand, we have public servants putting themselves in harm’s way and doing their duty to defend us, our country and the national interest, often in terrifying, dangerous and ghastly circumstances. On the other, we have pressure groups and very clever lawyers—often not well disposed towards the Armed Forces and often left wing—sitting in comfortable, warm offices in London and picking over every split-second decision made in a foreign country by scared young people doing their duty. Soldiers do not always get it right. Some behave maliciously or criminally, and some rightly go to jail, but I stand up for the young men doing their duty to the best of their ability who have been pursued by smug, overpaid lawyers.
I thought that my noble friend the Minister’s speech was excellent; I agreed with almost every part of it. I am disappointed by some of the criticism that has been dragged up, but I found it entertaining to be lectured on moral leadership by a Liberal Democrat. The Bill may not be perfect in this difficult context and it may warrant amendment, but it goes a long way to protect those who put their lives on the line to defend us.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Government are to be congratulated on bringing forward this Bill, which aims to put an end to the egregious injustice of historical allegations and prosecutions made again and again against members of our Armed Forces for past actions overseas in conflict and its aftermath. It is not before time. Successive Governments have failed to take action, not least because it has such complex legal implications. It is so much easier, is it not, for people to say, “It’s much too difficult. Let them continue to suffer”. I am very glad that the Government are moving this forward.
When I entered the Royal Navy in 1965, we assumed that, if we undertook actions in good faith in war and peace, the nation would protect us. That has seemed a false hope in the past few years, with the hounding of personnel for actions that they took in good faith abroad and overseas on operations and afterwards, often decades ago. What has not changed is that our sailors, soldiers and airmen hold themselves to the highest of standards: a force for good, and seen to be so, both at home and abroad.
While I salute the Minister’s wish to support those serving in the military and our veterans, who give so much to this nation of ours, the Bill as it stands has a number of—to put it mildly—wrinkles that need much fuller explanation; indeed, a number of them must be ironed out. In its current form, this legislation would seem to decriminalise acts of torture by members of the Armed Forces if they are reported after five years; a lot of previous speakers have covered this point. This cannot be the intention and serves the interests of no one. Indeed, in their attempt to protect the military the Government may well do individual personnel and our international standing serious harm. We must be wary of creating a perception, and certainly not a reality, that this is the case.
The Government seem to understand that it is in the interests of all for allegations of torture to be investigated fully whenever they might arise. In the initial consultation on this legislation it was suggested that time limits would not be imposed on allegations of sexual offences or torture being investigated. The latter was quietly removed with no explanation. Notwithstanding what the Minister said, it is somewhat bizarre that sexual offences are covered and torture is not—as is also true of genocide and war crimes.
On the subject of war crimes, referring back to what the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, said about lawyers, when I was at a debate on the subject a senior citizen told us about tying a German officer to the front of his scout car before fighting back through enemy lines in Normandy. I asked him what unit he was in. He said, “Oh, the Inns of Court & City Yeomanry”. I found out that he was a highly decorated judge. So I do not want to judge lawyers too harshly.
An added concern is that the legislation seems to make our service men and women more likely to be hauled before the International Criminal Court. Surely this cannot be what the Government want. It is something that we work very hard to avoid. There must some error there; something must be changed.
Another issue that needs clarification is claims against the MoD; a number of noble Lords touched on this. The de facto six-year time limit for claims being brought against Ministers and the MoD arising from active service abroad seems at first sight far from protecting our people, but rather reducing the rights of individual service personnel. Again, I am sure that that cannot be the intention. Something must be changed.
I firmly believe that th0065 Bill is needed, but if I had to mark it out of 10 I would give it a five. If the Government truly want to get a 10 and do their best to support our brave service men and women, they must accept a number of amendments to the Bill, which are really necessary.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord West, has pointed out, although the Government are to be congratulated on the intention behind the Bill, there are several wrinkles to be ironed out. First and foremost, there must be no provisions within it that would lead members of our Armed Forces to believe that they are sanctioned to break the rule of domestic or international law. In 1965, during confrontation with Indonesia, every company cross-border operation had to be authorised by the Cabinet, because in effect it involved an invasion—but that was an extreme.
Like many other noble Lords, during the remainder of the time allowed I shall concentrate on torture, which has been prohibited in this country ever since 1640. The most recent renewal of this prohibition was the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which designated it as a domestic offence, covering the torture of anyone, anywhere in the world. MoD doctrine makes clear that there are no circumstances in which torture, inhuman or degrading treatment can ever be justified. In the public consultation that the Government conducted prior to the Bill, HMG suggested that torture might not be covered by any presumption against prosecution. In the published Bill, however, only sexual offences are excluded from this presumption, acts of torture remaining subject to the Bill’s triple lock.
In the other place, 269 voted in favour of an amendment tabled by two ex-military MPs, David Davis and Dan Jarvis, to remove torture from the scope of the Bill. I give notice that I intend to table a similar amendment in Committee, or to attach my name to one removing it if another noble Lord should table one. Moreover, the Bill’s granting of immunity from prosecution to perpetrators of torture would not only break the UK’s obligations under the Geneva conventions, the UN Convention against Torture, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Rome statute and customary international law, it would leave members of our Armed Forces more rather than less likely to face prosecution at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
I join all other noble Lords who have praised and thanked the members of our Armed Forces, and I will always be proud of having served on overseas operations. Unfortunately, this Bill breaches the long-standing principle of military law that soldiers are subject to the same laws as all ordinary citizens, particularly with regard to torture, and we owe it to all service veterans and service men and women to scrutinise the Bill most thoroughly.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, the Government’s purpose in introducing the Bill, to provide greater certainty for service personnel and veterans regarding their potential criminal liability for purported actions taken during overseas operations, gives rise to two general questions. Is there a problem that needs to be addressed and, if so, how effective is the Bill in doing that? The answer to the first question is, I think, yes. The UK Armed Forces place the highest importance on carrying out their duties within the law. They fully understand that the rationale for having a uniformed military is that it, as an organisation, is permitted under international law to exercise destructive and lethal force, provided that it complies with the provisions of that law. In other words, adherence to the law is fundamental to the military’s very existence. This is why some senior serving personnel are nervous about the Bill. They do not wish there to be any doubt in people’s minds about their commitment in this regard.
It is also true that, despite this fundamental tenet, some military personnel do commit crimes on overseas operations. Our Armed Forces personnel in general exercise incredible judgment and restraint in the most dangerous and trying circumstances, but it would be unreasonable to expect that they should be entirely free of the faults and frailties that are part of the wider society from which they spring. When such crimes are suspected, they should be investigated thoroughly—and the investigation process itself would certainly bear improvement—and, if the evidence is sufficient, the perpetrators should be prosecuted. However, it is also the case that legal process has been increasingly used to pursue political and other non-legal objectives in relation to overseas operations. Members of the Armed Forces, who have often risked all at the behest of the Government and in the service of their country, have been caught in the middle of this procedural struggle. This has created immense mental stress for them and their families—stress that has been piled on top of the inevitable psychological impact of warfare with which they must already deal. We have a moral obligation to reduce that additional suffering to the maximum extent we can within the bounds of the rule of law.
So, how effectively does the Bill before us today achieve that objective? It attempts to strike a balance, but whether it is the best that can be done is not entirely clear. It certainly will not achieve its aim if it simply moves the legal process from UK jurisdiction to that of the International Criminal Court—quite the opposite, in fact. In addition, the Bill focuses on the issue of criminal prosecutions, but I am not sure that they are really the most significant problem. After all, the tests that the Bill introduces for prosecutors are mostly ones that they follow already, and that generally protect all people, civilian and military, from speculative trials. The stress on personnel arises less from actual prosecutions and more from protracted investigations, even when these come to nothing. We need look no further than at the notorious Metropolitan Police investigations under Operation Midland to see the truth of this. The lack of an eventual prosecution is not necessarily a protection against mental suffering. There is a doubt in my mind as to whether the Bill really gets at this issue.
Then there is the question of the extent to which the Bill aims to support members of the Armed Forces, and the degree to which it seeks to protect the Ministry of Defence. A department of state is well able to deal with vexatious claims. It may find them irritating and frustrating, but it is not subject to mental anguish in the way that individuals are, and I would have thought that it needs no special provision under the law.
Having said that, I am not clear that the provisions of the Bill are quite so dramatic as some have suggested. They do not condone or permit torture; nor is there a new time limit on pursuing such cases, only a more tightly but not obstructively defined set of conditions for doing so.
I for one entirely understand the rationale for excluding sexual offences from those conditions. It is not that a particular kind of offence is worse than another, but in one case an admitted outcome—death or injury—may reasonably be the result of lawful military action, while in the other a sexual assault can never be anything but criminal, whatever the circumstances. This seems to me a valid basis for excluding that category of offence from the provisions of the Bill.
So while I welcome the Bill, I believe that it can and should be improved. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the concerns that I have raised today, and to developing some of these themes further in Committee.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con) [V]
My Lords, following the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, is a daunting task, but the fact that I agree with what he said makes it easier.
The Bill has my support. It may not be perfect and it may need to be amended, but it helps to address the twin issues of, first, our service men and women living under a constant threat of litigation and prosecution years after events in which they were involved, and, secondly, enemies of our country and of our values using our legal system and our liberal values against us in a way that was never intended when our laws were drafted.
We are a country that believes in and upholds the rule of law. It is sad that it should be necessary to say this, but the disgraceful inclusion in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill of clauses designed to break the law both makes this necessary and weakens the Government’s arguments. However, those clauses would never have passed your Lordships’ House, so the country was able to reassert that we indeed believe in the rule of law. I disagree with the assertion by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, that this Bill is anything like the internal market Bill in that respect.
We have received extensive briefing against the Bill. I have to say that I found it unconvincing. I do not believe that there is anything wrong with reasonable time limits for civil litigation, nor that the Bill legitimises or decriminalises torture. Above all, I do not think there is anything wrong with a limited rebuttable presumption against prosecutions after a lengthy time. Our service men and women do a lot for us, and I believe that we should give them this.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]
My Lords, on the day when so many around the world breathe a sigh of relief at the departure of Donald Trump from the US presidential office that he has so tarnished, I fear that we must debate a policy that has at times, though not here, been almost Trumpian in its promotion and, if enacted, will in my view do considerable damage to the UK’s standing in the world. This is not a British loyalty test. The Bill does not give greater meaningful protection to the brave men and women of our Armed Forces. It is not at all as hitherto advertised.
The Government are fortunate indeed to have the Minister presenting the Bill to your Lordships’ House; in my experience, she is one of the most courteous and skilful advocates in either Chamber. Sadly, though, I cannot say that for those who presented the Bill in the other place, with blanket attacks on human rights and lawyers as an entire species. At one point the atmosphere was so toxic that a young and new Conservative Member, speaking from the very back of those Benches during the truncated debate, appeared almost to apologise for once having studied law. Is that what our democracy has come to?
I do not want anyone, let alone those that we put in harm’s way in open or covert conflicts not of their own making, to fear lengthy, shoddy repeat or politicised investigations, but Part 1 of the Bill does nothing at all to address the speed, finality or robustness of criminal investigations arising from overseas conflicts. Instead, as has been pointed out by a host of critics, many of them of distinguished military rank and service, it creates a de facto presumptive five-year statute of limitations on even grave crimes such as torture and restricts the decision to prosecute after that point to a politician, the Attorney-General.
I fear that the distinction made by the Minister between torture and sex offences was not convincing as, sadly, both can be the subject of false allegation. Five years is a particularly short time in relation to secret operations. Such a limitation, as has been said, will only increase the possibility of British personnel facing the jurisdiction of international courts in future. That would be a perverse outcome.
On the involvement of the Attorney-General, I am afraid I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, not the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, however much I admire him. The involvement of the Attorney-General risks a prosecution being prevented by the very same law officer who previously advised on the legality of the precise military operation now impugned. Alternatively, it risks a prosecution being brought by a subsequent Government’s principal lawyer whose party may have been very publicly critical of the conflict now in question. Both scenarios risk politicisation or at least jeopardising the trust of both the public and, crucially, service personnel themselves.
Part 2 of the Bill is just as troubling, not least because it would strip away the vital protection for veterans and their families who may have had no advice or bad advice or been completely unable to establish a causation between their suffering, which they may well have known about, and negligence by the MoD within the six-year period. Instead, the courts are currently well capable of handling their discretion under the Limitation Act and MoD lawyers are well able to robustly defend the Government. This is clearly a protection for a government department, perhaps even for its political masters, but not for those veterans who too often have been put in the most dangerous and damaging circumstances with inadequate kit, training and planning. It is a breach of trust with them.
As for the duty to consider derogations from the Convention on Human Rights, this provision is either totally unnecessary, dangerous showboating or an attempt domestically to dilute the convention’s own very high bar for derogation, which is, as we have heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, strict necessity
“in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation”.
That will not cover all overseas operations, and of course no derogation at all is allowed from the absolute prohibition on torture.
The overwhelming majority of Armed Forces personnel and veterans I have ever had the privilege of meeting are decent, disciplined and brave. They do not fear human rights or the rule of law; to the contrary, they are inspired to fight for them, sometimes at devastating personal cost. This Bill neither honours nor protects them—quite the opposite.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB) [V]
My Lords, I applaud the motivations behind the Bill, which are to address vexatious claims and repetitive investigations, yet, along with other noble Lords, I have difficulty in seeing how either objective is furthered by what is described as the presumption against prosecution in Part 1 of the Bill. It is common ground, I think, that there is no problem of vexation prosecutions of service personnel; indeed, prosecutions have been conspicuous by their rarity. Nor does Part 1 have anything to do with civil claims or the Human Rights Act. Its effect would be to prevent prosecutions after five years for even the most serious criminal offences, save in exceptional circumstances and with the permission of the Attorney-General. Its specific purpose is to prevent the prosecution of cases that would currently be brought to trial after an independent prosecutor had judged the exacting evidential and public interest tests to be satisfied.
The Brereton report of last November illustrates what this would mean in practice. It found evidence of 39 murders of civilians and prisoners of war in Afghanistan between 2009 and 2013 involving 25 Australian service personnel: crimes committed on overseas operations, but not in the heat of battle. If Australia had a similar law to Part 1 of this Bill, who is to say that any of those people would be prosecuted? The matters to be given particular weight under Clause 3 are all factors that militate against prosecution. Nor would the severity of the crime establish exceptionality, given what will rightly be said to be Parliament’s clear intention, if we pass the Bill unamended, that even torture, war crimes and genocide should be subject to the presumption against prosecution.
Part 1 is indeed particularly problematic in its application to crimes which fall within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. It is not just the obvious injustice of a law which would allow a soldier to be prosecuted for the sexual assault of a civilian but not, despite equally strong evidence, for her murder; nor is it just the risk that the Bill would violate our obligations to prosecute under the treaties listed at paragraph 57 of the Joint Committee’s report, including, but not limited to, the torture convention; it is also what Judge Advocate-General Blackett described to the Defence Secretary in a leaked letter, since echoed by the ICC prosecutor’s office, as the increased likelihood of UK service personnel being brought before the ICC.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, said in this House on 15 January 2001, during debate on what became the International Criminal Court Act:
“If there should ever be any allegation that a British citizen or member of the British Armed Forces has committed one of these crimes we shall be able to launch our own investigation. Any such accusations will be tried in British courts.”—[Official Report, 15/1/01; col. 927.]
If the Judge Advocate-General is correct, Part 1 of the Bill dilutes that promise. How counterproductive it would be, and how shaming, if, by reducing the scope for prosecutions in this country, we were to increase the scope for prosecutions in The Hague.
The timely prosecutions of those at the appropriate level of command and the nipping in the bud of vexatious civil claims would both be made easier if investigators got it right first time around, undefeated by the “wall of silence” or by attempts at cover-up. As Mark Goodwin-Hudson, NATO civilian casualty and mitigation team lead in Afghanistan, told the Bill Committee, the best way to stop what he called the “spiralling of reinvestigation” would be
“the ability to conduct accurate and timely investigations in theatre”.
I therefore welcome the Government’s announcement last October of a review led by Sir Richard Henriques, which
“will consider options for strengthening internal investigation processes and skills”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/11/20; col. 17.]
I shall welcome it even more if the Minister can confirm that the remit of the Henriques review extends to the independent element of the investigation, and to recommending any statutory changes that might be needed to reinforce the powers and independence of the service police.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a serving member of the Army Reserve.
I support the Bill, which in my mind is long overdue. But I recognise that it seeks to walk a tightrope between giving reassurance to members of the Armed Forces and veterans that they will not be unfairly pursued or suffer repeated investigation and that they will be prosecuted only in exceptional circumstances for historic events, while maintaining our standing in the international community by not seeming to countenance criminal behaviour within our military or by disrespecting international humanitarian law or organisations such as the International Criminal Court.
Nobody is suggesting that a tiny minority of members of our Armed Forces have not committed crimes while on operations; the examples are there for us all to see. But these rare events must not be allowed to overshadow the facts that, despite often being under the most extraordinary pressure, the overwhelming majority of our Armed Forces behave impeccably on operations; and that their professionalism and high moral standards in ensuring that the rules of war are observed are second to none.
This is because of not only the quality of the individuals but the quality of the mandatory annual training and—as I experienced myself before deploying to Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan—the operational pre-deployment training they undertake. This training ensures that the high values and standards of the British military and our respect for international law are ingrained in our service personnel. I know that they would be the first to say that it is imperative that any legislation Parliament passes must not undermine their sense that they deploy on operations firmly on the moral high ground.
Aspects of the Bill are certainly open to criticism but, in reading much of the commentary, I have been struck by how little of it actually relates to the words written on the face of the Bill. What is clear is that the Bill does not create, nor come close to creating, “de facto immunity” for serving or former service personnel, even in respect of offences that are not excluded by Schedule 1. This is for several reasons.
First, the Bill at most creates a test of exceptionality for prosecution only after the period of five years has expired. Although the clause heading is “Presumption against prosecution”, what is being provided for is an exceptionality test and what is “exceptional” will be provided for by an independent prosecutor and the Attorney-General. Secondly, nothing in the Bill limits the investigation of offences. While some have questioned, probably fairly, the effectiveness of MoD investigations in the past, I must say that during my time at the MoD I witnessed a considerable improvement in the quality of investigations, from the IHAT investigations in Iraq to the Op Northmoor investigations relating to Afghanistan. That said, I too am pleased that the eminent retired judge Sir Richard Henriques has been appointed by Ben Wallace to conduct a review of MoD investigations; this is a most welcome move. Thirdly, nothing in the Bill limits the determination by prosecutors of whether in any case the evidential test has been met.
But taken together, the Bill’s provisions constitute what could be described as an enhanced filter on prosecution after the lapse of five years. The purpose of this filter is clearly that service personnel should have some assurance that they are much less likely to face prosecution once five years have passed from the events in question. Having received many letters from distressed veterans living in fear of the uncertainty of prosecution, I can say that it is the lack of finality of investigation that has caused so much stress for so many. The Bill’s requirement for prosecutors to take into account the public interest in finality, where there has been an investigation and no new evidence found, and to take due consideration of the challenging circumstances to which UK forces are subject while on overseas deployment seem to me perfectly sensible.
If—and it is a big if—the Bill delivers what it seeks to achieve, the positive impact on veterans’ mental health should not be underestimated. But let us be clear: it is not preventing anyone from being prosecuted for a crime they have committed. No person is above the law and, unlike a civilian, UK forces rightly are also subject to service law and the law of armed conflict. It would be a cause for justified alarm if the Bill were to seek to permit UK forces to breach this legal regime with impunity, but it does not.
Time does not allow me to comment in detail on all aspects of the Bill today, but there are several areas I look forward to exploring in Committee—for example, in Schedule 1, under excluded offences, why sexual offences are specifically excluded but torture is not, as many other noble Lords have highlighted; in Part 2, the circumstances under which the Secretary of State would consider derogating from the European Convention on Human Rights regarding future overseas operations; why the Bill treats overseas territories differently from how they are treated in the Armed Forces Act; and, finally, exploring the Government’s view towards some of the points raised by Judge Jeff Blackett during his evidence session to the committee.
As other noble Lords have said, this Bill needs work, but I will support it at Second Reading.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, with every Bill this Government present to this House, we see a further erosion of civil liberties, the rule of law reduced and, of course, a constant attack on parliamentary democracy—and this Bill is no different. It is pretty terrible. I am really heartened to have listened to the comments so far, which clearly indicate that there is a lot of dissatisfaction about the Bill, and I presume that it will be very heavily amended.
The Bill is very much at odds with the United Nations special rapporteurs. The Government, Ministers in particular, have consistently expressed some horrific sentiments over the years which seek to marginalise and undermine the UN special rapporteurs as being somehow politically motivated. This has come up in relation to the Government’s treatment of people who are in poverty or homeless, people with disabilities, and now victims of torture and other crimes at the hands of British troops. It undermines any claim that the United Nations might be a global leader for peace, justice and human rights.
Beyond the United Nations, many other experts have warned about how the Bill undermines the UK’s so-called commitment to human rights and a rules-based international order. Indeed, today in the Daily Mail there is a headline: “Theresa May blasts Boris’s ‘moral failure’”. She has criticised Boris Johnson, our Prime Minister, “for abandoning British values” and
“slammed his threat to break international law and tear up foreign aid.”
The article says:
“The former prime minister says the two actions were not ones that ‘raised our credibility in the eyes of the world’. If Britain is to lead internationally, she says, we must live up to ‘our values’.”
The Bill clearly does not live up to our values. It is based on fiction and conspiracy theories—it could have been written by the Daily Mail comment section. It stems from a false assertion that there is some sort of crisis of vexatious claims against UK forces, although in truth, hardly any criminal prosecutions have been brought against service personnel in relation to Iraq and Afghanistan. On the contrary, the inquiry into the death in of Baha Mousa in September 2003 revealed torture, unlawful killing and the use of prohibited techniques by British soldiers. It makes harrowing reading.
Instead of fiddling with prosecutorial discretion and the statute of limitations, Parliament should instead be implementing a comprehensive, effective, independent system of investigation of complaints against military personnel. Repeat investigations are ordered by courts because the original investigations were so shoddy that they needed to be conducted again. We are talking about interference by the chain of command and refusal to pass on to military police and prosecution. Service personnel would be greatly helped if they knew that future allegations would be fairly, reasonably, independently and rigorously investigated within a sensible amount of time, and one way or another resolved. However, this legislation does not address any of that, and the provisions in the Bill are nonsense.
The courts already have a very wide range of case management powers. They can throw out unmeritorious and vexatious claims at a very early stage and can make court orders against vexatious claimants. The Government must explain why this is not sufficient to deal with these claims, and then explain why the military needs a special system of dealing with unmeritorious claims which is not available to other defendants in legal proceedings.
Then there is the downright stupid fact that this legislation, rather than protecting service personnel, would in fact be likely to open up British forces to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, as other noble Lords have already mentioned. This prospect renders the whole Bill counterproductive and downright dangerous. Rather than face investigation and prosecution in the UK, troops would be exposed to the risk of international arrest and, of course, prosecution and trial at The Hague.
I asked a former general for his advice on the Bill. After some thought, he gave a considered answer, saying that it could be dangerous for our troops because it might mean that other regimes and the troops of other countries would be more inclined to torture our troops or treat them badly, in return for our lack of concern about torture.
I therefore feel that the Government should pause the Bill and start to think quite seriously about whether it is needed and, if it is needed, about how to improve it.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, during my time as Secretary of State, I had the privilege to work closely with our Armed Forces. I have the highest regard for those who serve and for their integrity. Sadly, we are all too familiar with stories of our Armed Forces personnel being hounded for years and years. The Bill is to be commended for seeking to address such abuses. It seeks to find a balance between the difficult truths that, sometimes, service personnel have been the subject of prolonged legal jeopardy, while sometimes they have broken the laws of war, as we have heard—acts which must be investigated and, where the evidence is sufficient, reliable, and credible, prosecuted and punished.
We all have a responsibility for taking too long to deal with these issues, but the fact is that the Bill does not resolve the problem of repeated and prolonged investigations because the Government have chosen to frame the issue as a legal problem, when the truth is that it is a problem about the timeliness and quality of investigations. Further, the Minister responsible for the passage of the Bill, Johnny Mercer, knows this to be the case. In a Guardian podcast in 2019, he was challenged about the existence of video evidence of apparent abuse, specifically “torture and beatings of civilians”. His interviewer suggested to him that “something has gone very wrong there surely?” I will read out his reply in full, because it is important: “You are absolutely right, and it is a very fair point, that actually one of the biggest problems with this was the military’s inability to investigate itself properly and the standard of those investigations, and it is that precise point which is being challenged by other lawyers and I totally understand that, and this behaviour has been totally unacceptable and the military has a role to play in this as well, and can’t just blame everybody else. If those investigations were done properly and self-regulation had occurred, we probably wouldn’t be here today.”
It is no answer to this criticism that the Government have now belatedly set up a further inquiry into how these investigations are conducted. Not only is the Bill aimed at the wrong target, it will see Britain reneging on its international legal commitments, none more so than our legal commitments to investigate allegations of torture and international crimes and, where appropriate, prosecute.
The Government rightly have decided to exclude sexual offences from the Bill. In response to the public consultation, the MoD said that
“the use of sexual violence or sexual exploitation during conflict is never acceptable in any circumstances.”
Nor is torture. Torture is not only ineffective but illegal. For these reasons, we need unqualified safeguards on torture. Ministers who deny that the triple lock will weaken our stance on torture dismiss these arguments with a wave of a hand, even though a growing and diverse coalition of military, legal and other experts maintain that it will do exactly that, and explain comprehensively why.
The Bill undermines our obligations under the Geneva conventions and the UN Convention against Torture to investigate and prosecute grave breaches of international humanitarian law. It promotes the dangerous idea—recently attempted, unsuccessfully, during the passage of the UK Internal Market Act—that the UK can simply set aside international obligations in law. Its entry into force will be yet more evidence of what Theresa May today called the abandonment of the UK’s moral leadership on the world stage.
Additionally, what is effectively a de facto statute of limitations on the prosecution of war crimes makes it much more likely that British soldiers will be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court, which acts only where countries are unwilling to prosecute their own citizens. Recently, the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court warned that if a proposed presumption against prosecution were introduced, it
“would need to consider its potential impact on the ability of the UK authorities to investigate and/or prosecute crimes allegedly committed by members of the British armed forces … against the standards of inactivity and genuineness set out in Article 17”
of the Rome Statute. We should remember that we have a solemn commitment to our Armed Forces, given on ratification, that no member would ever be at risk of appearing in The Hague.
Finally, the provision in the Bill which requires the Government to consider derogating from the European Convention on Human Rights has been described as
“legally meaningless and only has rhetorical value.”
What exactly is the objective? Do the Government think that they can simply state that human rights do not apply? Do they appreciate that they cannot derogate from the prohibition of torture and can do so only in respect of killing if it happens because of lawful acts of war, which then engages the Geneva conventions?
I end with a question for the Minister. For what precisely do the Government want this provision, and how will they use it?
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, I sense that no-one who speaks on the Bill today will not have the interests of British service men and women at heart, and that is certainly my primary consideration. Undoubtedly, the situation that many service people have found themselves in over recent years in respect of vexatious claims absolutely demands government action. I seriously worry, however, that the political desire to resolve this problem has primarily resulted in a wish to change the law. My worry is twofold. First, I believe that this issue is a practical not a legal one. Secondly, I worry that legal solutions may bring with them unforeseen consequences, some of which will be absolutely contrary to the stated intent. I will summarise my views in five points.
The first is context. As we have heard, much of the source of the current problem has nothing to do with shortcomings in the legal framework. Rather, it is due to the Government’s inability to properly resource adequate investigative capacity and a weakness—indeed a failure, I admit—of the whole chain of command to ensure that investigations have been pursued with vigour and integrity. As a priority, we should correct these deficiencies.
My second point concerns the legal framework itself and the dangers of exceptionalism. It is true that the framework is a complex aggregation of historical conventions and both international and national law, but it is an acceptance of this evolved framework and a determination to function within it that gives our Armed Forces both their legitimacy and their moral authority. To seek to legislate to make ourselves exceptions to this framework, even in cleverly construed legal ways, produces multiple risks: to our international standing; to our reputation as a trusted ally; to the true status of our moral authority; to the justification of reprisals from our enemies; and ultimately, as many have mentioned, to the unquantifiable risk that our people will be brought before the International Criminal Court rather than our own national ones.
My third point concerns effective training. As I have said, the legal framework for the use of force and wider conduct of operations is complex. It is a challenge to convert this framework into a set of rules and procedures that are easy to both teach and comprehend. Our Armed Forces have, over the years, developed some very effective means of simplifying the legal framework and of employing sophisticated methods of judgmental training in how to operate within it. The aim has always been to make what is legal and what is morally proper also that which is natural and instinctive.
Therefore, to introduce even greater complexity into the legal framework, complexity that at least appears to differentiate between the gravity of certain acts—between murder, torture, rape and sexual violence for example—all of which are illegal, seriously prejudices the intuitive understanding of service men and women. I have heard it said that the Bill presents some external presentational challenges. It would also create some significant and potentially dangerous internal ones.
My fourth point is about command responsibility and leadership. Recent experience clearly shows that, particularly when operations are intensive, prolonged and conducted from remote and isolated bases, the requirement for strong leadership and command oversight, while more difficult, is even more vital. I do not believe that the law has ways of holding the chain of command to account, but I am absolutely certain that the chain of command cannot distance itself from the responsibility to actively mitigate the conditions that can contribute to individual failings. I am interested to know what lessons we have learned about this for the future and what action we intend to take.
My final thought on this issue is more esoteric. In the military, we often say that the nature of warfare endures, but the character of warfare changes. Perhaps one recent facet of this changing character has been the advent of lawfare. This represents a new vector of attack, where our enemies will exploit our vulnerabilities to delegitimise our use of force and the moral authority we hold. If our response to this threat is a recourse, however well intentioned, to legal exceptionalism, I fear we will actually be showing weakness. We will risk surrendering our moral advantage and our enemies will be encouraged, not deterred.
I will finish where I started. No one who speaks today will not have the interests of our servicemen and women at heart, but my strong view is that we will not legislate ourselves out of this problem through amendments to the law. There is a very strong chance that, regardless of good intentions, we may make things worse for the very people we are trying to protect.
Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]
My Lords, I start where my noble friend just ended. Like him, many colleagues and the Minister, I begin by paying tribute to the brave men and women of our Armed Forces, including brave men and women from my own family—from my paternal and maternal grandfathers to my daughter, who once again has chosen a life in uniform and dedicated her life to defending the freedoms and values that we hold precious. It is in this vein that I make my remarks today.
No one can doubt the Government’s stated intentions. I support those stated intentions, but I worry that the Bill as drafted does not. We must always protect our Armed Forces from vexatious claims. Families and lives have been destroyed through such claims, and I would not want my family—indeed, any family—to be on the receiving end of such claims. However, alongside that and in seeking to do so, we must not undermine the very values we seek to protect, including through military action.
Tragically, the wars that form the backdrop to the Bill are often remembered not for what good we achieved but for the harm our intervention unleashed, including the tragic loss of life, torture and sexual violence. Thankfully, much of what I can term rogue behaviour was the action of troops other than UK troops, but sadly, as your Lordships have heard, our young men and women were not immune from conduct that was, at best, unethical and immoral, and, at worst, serious criminal acts leading to death. We have heard examples today. Those individual incidents are appalling singularly, but collectively impact on our reputation and thus, I would say, our military’s ability to function at its most effective in the multiple roles in which we deploy it in these times.
My question for my noble friend is one that has been previously asked: why is sexual violence—rightly, in my view—excluded from the triple lock, but not torture and war crimes: something we, sadly, saw in both Iraq and Afghanistan? My noble friend referred to the unique nature of warfare in her opening remarks and said that this means that in exceptional circumstances the lock will not apply. Torture is, by its very nature, exceptional. It should not have to be deemed as such on a case-by-case basis for the triple lock not to apply, and we certainly should not be providing blanket legal protection. We must be sure that individuals who partake in torture, whoever they may be, have a clear message that such acts will not go unpunished.
It cannot be that absolute accepted positions of our commitment to the Geneva Convention are left unclear by the Bill. Our commitment, over generations, to human rights conventions forms the bedrock of many an argument that we are intervening in places around the world—to protect and promote human rights and to prevent human rights abuses. It would be hard for us to justify such interventions if the first step we take before intervention is to derogate from our own human rights obligations.
What is further troubling is Clause 6(2), which would exempt from the triple lock prosecuting offences committed against members of the Regular Forces or Reserve Forces, members of a British Overseas Territory force, Crown servants and defence contractors. I find this hard to reconcile with our commitment that all are equal before the law. Perhaps my noble friend can explain the reasoning behind why the murder of a fellow British co-worker is more serious than that of, say, an Iraqi or Afghan civilian. Surely the crime cannot be judged differently depending on the victim, rather than the act and intention of the perpetrator.
In 2014, during my time as FCO Minister with responsibility for the International Criminal Court, we were engaged in meetings with the prosecutor Fatou Bensouda about claims of abuse made against our troops in Iraq. In discussions about where these matters would be tried and what role the ICC would play, our strongest argument was our domestic system, both investigations and prosecutions. The Bill may undermine what has been the strongest protection for our Armed Forces: that even those who may have engaged in criminal conduct will be dealt with here, in our courts. We must make sure that, in this Bill, we do not make the error of changing that.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introductory remarks. I too begin by paying tribute to members of the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Their courage and professionalism are truly remarkable and it is important that we recognise them not just by our words, but in the actions that we as a country take to protect those who work so hard to protect us. I therefore welcome the Bill. It introduces important safeguards and protections for our veterans, who have the right to know that we take their concerns on these issues very seriously indeed. We have all heard and read tragic stories of veterans being dragged through the courts. They are often elderly and suffering terrible mental anguish at being subjected to repeated, unwarranted legal processes.
Of course, as many have said we must have a system that allows proper, fair investigation and prosecution, where appropriate, of wrongdoing by members of the Armed Forces, but what we have seen, particularly in Northern Ireland, is a one-sided approach to investigations into the past. That cannot endure. I want to make it clear that we do not believe in any form of amnesty. The Bill does not include any such provision, and it would never be accepted.
It is important to remember that the Bill ensures compliance with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, namely, the entitlement to
“a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal”.
It is important that any allegations of wrongdoing are investigated as close to the event as possible, but the problem that has arisen has been the relentless pursuit, often for nefarious reasons, of veterans who are being hounded time after time long after the events in which they are accused of wrongdoing. Surely everybody can agree that it is important to end the vexatious pursuit of service personnel in later life, so I welcome the fact that under the Bill prosecutors will be obliged to have due regard to the impact on soldiers, sailors and air men and women of being prosecuted long after the event.
The Bill applies to veterans who served on overseas operations. I add my voice to the plea that has already gone forth in the House that the Government look at the situation of some 300,000 veterans who served in Northern Ireland in Operation Banner. The Government gave a solemn commitment in March in a Statement to Parliament that those who served in Northern Ireland would get equal protection along with the veterans covered by the Bill. Will the Minister confirm very clearly this evening that a Bill will be introduced very soon to honour that commitment? I would be very grateful if she can indicate a timescale for the introduction of that legislation.
The Bill is the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, and we understand the difference between protecting veterans who served overseas and protecting veterans undertaking domestic operations within UK jurisdiction, such as those involved in Operation Banner in Northern Ireland. But it important that the brave service men and women who served in Northern Ireland over so many years are included in the protections and safeguards being offered to those who served overseas. As the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has said, it is also important to note that members of our police suffered terribly during the so-called Troubles and more than 300 of them died. Their cases need to be looked at in the same way, and I am glad that the Government have made commitments in that regard.
I look forward to the Bill being further debated and the issues that have been raised in this general Second Reading debate being pursued in more detail in further stages of deliberation. I look forward most of all to the Government honouring their commitment in relation to protecting service men and women who served in Northern Ireland, as well as those who served overseas.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the advisory board of the British Institute of Human Rights. I speak as someone who became aware of the conduct and, especially, the high reputation of our Armed Forces overseas in the actual areas where they operated when I was involved in international development. We are fortunate in the high standards of our Armed Forces and can be rightly proud of them.
That is the main reason why I find parts of the Bill distressing and inappropriate. The level of prosecutions hitherto has been very low. There has not been victimisation of soldiers through due process. A recent freedom of information request by the Minority Rights Group found that from all operations in Iraq, from 2003 to the present, there was only one prosecution under the ICC Act and in the lesser category of offences alleged by members of the public there were only five prosecutions. In Afghanistan from 2001 to the present—some 20 years—there were only nine convictions. This is hardly a picture of soldiers needing supralegal protection, even if it were desirable. For that matter, since the Bill deals only with prosecutions, it would not prevent vexatious litigation in the course of investigations, and even those cases have been speedily thrown out under our current legislation.
Yet the Bill appears to assume that very serious crimes may be committed by service personnel and proposes to reduce substantially their openness to prosecution, even in cases of torture, war crimes and genocide, after only five years. As a signatory to the UN convention against torture the UK has always repudiated torture, and freedom from torture is the only absolute unqualified right in the whole armoury of human rights. It would tarnish our reputation indelibly to allow it tacitly in any circumstances. That is not the only international standard that the Bill breaches—those which by definition cannot be set aside, not excluding the law of armed conflict itself. The result will be that our servicemen, in the unlikely event that there is such an allegation against them, will, as has been said very widely in your Lordships’ House, go before the International Criminal Court, which was hitherto reserved for states which are too undemocratic to hold a fair and legal trial. That is a matter of shame.
Then there is the issue for service personnel of the deprivation of the right to profit by the discretion of the court if claiming after the expiration period is over, of which there have again been very few examples. This would adversely affect veterans who have served their country, and those veterans’ families. The provision may even breach the Armed Forces covenant, according to the Royal British Legion. There would indeed be merit in a better investigation procedure, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said, and there is certainly a case for more certainty, but that is what the Bill lacks.
Our Armed Forces deserve better. I echo Lord Guthrie, General Sir Nick Parker, the Royal British Legion and many noble and noble and gallant Lords this evening in saying that we have no justification for abandoning our respected tradition of upholding international human rights law, nor for jeopardising our reputation and that of our soldiers in the international community.
Baroness D’Souza (CB) [V]
My Lords, all that needs to be said about the Bill has already been said, and I will merely reiterate my main concerns in the interests of both my conscience and solidarity.
I welcome the Bill. It is long overdue and will greatly contribute, above all else, to improving morale in the Armed Forces. That said, there are many elements of it that were queried through amendments which were rejected in the other place but which would, I believe, have added clarity to the Bill and, more crucially, would have ensured that the UK remained within its obligations under several international treaties to which it is a state party.
Clearly, I am among many who have raised these issues. I refer to the clauses that allow certain war crimes to remain uncontested and unprosecuted due to an in-built statute of limitations. It appears that there are three specific issues of concern that not only contravene several conventions—the European Convention on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the convention against torture—but leave survivors of torture without redress. Here, I might add, having worked with torture survivors for many years, that many of them yearn for a formal acknowledgment, in terms of a prosecution, of the wrongs that have been done to them so that they might begin their recovery.
There is a triple lock of presumption against prosecution, the requirement that prosecutions against torture can happen only in exceptional cases and the right of the Attorney-General to exercise a veto against prosecution. Taken together, these are in effect a decriminalisation of torture. Astonishingly, it is conceded in the Bill that sexual offences are never acceptable under any circumstances, the implication being that torture, by its omission, is acceptable.
The passing of the Bill into statute in its current form would undermine the UK’s long and good reputation for having championed legislation against war crimes and would negate its actions on the atrocities in Cambodia, Rwanda and the former Republic of Yugoslavia.
The statute of limitations for prosecution is unrealistic, to say the least. Given that most investigations are nearly always very slow to start and often subject to many delays, the presumption of no prosecution will in fact apply to almost every case. It would be both counterproductive in providing a dubious precedent to other, less democratic states and embarrassing for UK officials to call for prosecution of war crimes at international forums on, say, Syria, Iraq or Myanmar, while denying victims in the UK the same legal freedoms. Those concerns will undoubtedly be addressed in later stages of the Bill.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, the motives and purpose behind the Bill ought to be regarded across the whole House as unimpeachable. Our Armed Forces are the very best of us and they do a superb job to keep the people of this United Kingdom safe and secure in an ever-dangerous world. In return, they should command our respect and admiration, and enjoy our strongest possible support, not only in the tools they have to do the job we ask of them but through the legal framework in which they operate.
As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, made very clear, our Armed Forces should always carry out their duties to the highest standards of professionalism and integrity, and within the law, as the vast majority do. Where individuals fall short of those standards and in some cases act unlawfully, they should always face proper investigation and the consequences. At the same time, they should not have to act in a conflict situation fearful that at some unspecified point in the future they will be subject to spurious and vexatious claims or hounded by corrupt individuals, such as the odious Mr Shiner.
That is what the Bill seeks to address, and I look forward to the detailed scrutiny of its provisions in Committee and on Report. In this context, I too commend the paper published today by Policy Exchange entitled Ten Ways to Improve the Overseas Operations Bill, by Professor Richard Ekins and the former Northern Ireland Attorney-General, John Larkin QC.
In the short time I have today, I wish to focus on the one area not covered by this legislation and to explain why, importantly, it is right that it is not. I refer of course to Northern Ireland.
The purpose of the Bill is to protect service personnel deployed in military conflict or war situations. I am conscious that for many soldiers there is little distinction between the dangers they faced in Basra or in Belfast—a point made to me forcefully by the Veterans Commissioner for Northern Ireland, Danny Kinahan, in a conversation this morning.
However, there is a critical legal and political distinction between the two. Operation Banner in Northern Ireland was never an overseas military conflict or a war. The role of the Armed Forces was to provide support for the civil power in upholding democracy and the rule of law against a criminal terrorist threat in an integral part of our United Kingdom. To characterise it any differently or by referring to what happened in Northern Ireland as a conflict or, even worse, as a war, as some have done, risks playing directly into the hands of those who wish to rewrite history, legitimise terrorism and promote some kind of moral equivalence between those who upheld the law and those who sought to destroy it. These are things that the United Kingdom Government must always resist. We should avoid anything that allows former terrorists to justify past misdeeds or, indeed, helps dissidents to recruit today.
It follows, therefore, that Northern Ireland requires bespoke arrangements that give protections to former members of our Armed Forces and the Royal Ulster Constabulary while, at the same time, providing potentially better outcomes for victims and survivors. They need to reflect the fact that 90% of deaths during the Troubles were caused by terrorists, both republican and loyalist, and they must be consistent with the rule of law. I have always opposed amnesties or statutes of limitation that would have to apply equally across the board to include former terrorists—something that many of us would find absolutely repellent.
As noble Lords have pointed out, on the day that this Bill was published in March last year, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland issued a Written Statement setting out the Government’s latest thinking on legacy issues in Northern Ireland. Like other noble Lords, I wonder whether the Minister, in winding up, will be in a position to update the House on where we are with that process.
In conclusion, all of us who believe in the union, and indeed all of us in these islands who cherish democracy and the rule of law, owe those who served throughout Operation Banner—both the RUC and the Armed Forces—the most enormous debt of gratitude. As I have said on many occasions, they are the unsung heroes of the peace process, and it was their efforts—and, sadly, in too many cases their sacrifice—that provided the space for politics eventually to succeed in Northern Ireland.
We need to repay that debt but never in ways that, unwittingly or otherwise, undermine all that we stood for in ensuring that the future of Northern Ireland would always be determined by democracy and consent. So I fully support the fact that Northern Ireland remains outside the scope of the Bill as we give it its Second Reading, but I look forward to the Government’s proposals in due course.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, has withdrawn from the debate, so the next speaker is the noble Lord, Lord Hain.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, if the Bill passed unamended, it would put the UK at serious risk of being in breach of the Geneva conventions and other international treaties. Far from protecting veterans from prosecution, it would
“increase the risk of service personnel appearing before the International Criminal Court.”—[Official Report, Commons, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill Committee, 8/10/20; col. 118.],
as Armed Forces Judge Advocate General, Jeff Blackett, pointed out. By reneging on the UK’s legal obligations, what is set out in the Bill would in fact betray those who serve our country with bravery. How can high standards of professionalism in our Armed Forces be reconciled with giving them effective legal immunity?
But on the back of the introduction of the Bill in the other place, another related issue was raised—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Caine—which gave an ominous insight into the Government’s dangerously flawed understanding of the Northern Ireland peace process and the central importance to it of dealing sensitively with the legacy of the past.
On 18 March 2020, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland issued a two-page Written Ministerial Statement, thus conveniently avoiding scrutiny on the Floor of the House, outlining proposals to
“ensure equal treatment of Northern Ireland veterans and those who served overseas”
and to address the broader legacy issues of Northern Ireland’s violent past. Unilaterally and without reference to any victims and survivors stakeholder groups, political parties or the Irish Government, he announced that the cross-party-backed Stormont House agreement and the legacy proposals contained it in were to be set aside. Instead, he proposed a speedy—for “speedy”, I fear we can read “cursory”—desk-top review of all unresolved cases and, unless there was compelling new evidence that could lead to prosecution, they would be closed for ever, never to be reopened.
This would be a de facto amnesty that would cover the vast majority of murders that were carried out by republican and loyalist paramilitaries. Not only would the permanent closure of unresolved cases be without legal precedent, but it would deal a devastating blow to all those bereaved—including the families of many of the over-500 military personnel killed during the Troubles—to be told that the state no longer has any interest in what happened to their loved ones. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee initiated an inquiry into these proposals by Brandon Lewis in April, and I gave evidence to it, along with the noble Lords, Lord Caine and Lord Cormack. However, in a damning interim report, the committee reached the unanimous conclusion that the proposals were “unilateral and unhelpful”.
I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State will belatedly give evidence to NIAC this afternoon—he may already have done so—and I also welcome his acknowledgement that the Operation Kenova model is worth looking at because it has won widespread support from victims. What victims and survivors want above all is to know that the life and death of their loved one mattered and that their murder has been properly investigated. That can only be achieved through a robust investigative process, one that is truth-seeking rather than prosecutorial, like Kenova.
I am struck by the link between the words “amnesty” and “amnesia”: the great fear that many victims and survivors have is that they are forgotten. It is one of the cornerstones of our democracy that everyone is equal before the law and subject to the rule of law. To tamper with those precepts, in the case of the overseas operations Bill, by granting partial immunity to veterans should be done only when there is an absolutely compelling case that some greater good will result. The Government have not made that case with this legislation, and what the Secretary of State proposed in relation to the legacy in Northern Ireland takes us even further into dangerous territory. Both should be firmly resisted.
Lord Boyce (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. This Bill is to be welcomed in principle as an attempt to mitigate the pernicious effect that “lawfare” can have on the fighting efficiency and morale of our Armed Forces. However, there are aspects of this Bill that could be improved, such as the way that allegations of torture should be handled and the Government’s proposed six-year limit on service people bringing civil claims, which means, in effect, that service personnel will have fewer rights than the general public in seeking damages against their employer, as we heard earlier this afternoon—surely, this must be a breach of the Armed Forces covenant. Some noble Lords have covered these two points already, and I am sure that more will do so before this debate winds up.
I will focus on two other points, which, again, have already been mentioned by earlier speakers. First, I note the length of time a service person often has to endure while lengthy investigations into an alleged offence take place, sometimes having to suffer a second or third investigation, or more, into the same matter, even when the accused has been cleared at the first investigation. It is interminable investigations, which too often have been vexatious or unmeritorious, rather than the threat of prosecution, that so drain the morale. The Bill needs to be tougher in showing how this problem might be addressed. In particular, there has to be a way of terminating investigations when it becomes clear that they are going nowhere: there needs to be a timetable for those investigations to ensure they are as short as possible, do not become fishing expeditions and provide an opportunity for a judge to stop an unmeritorious or vexatious investigation early.
On the implications that surround the Bill, which have been mentioned, about having the stress of someone under investigation alleviated by having a presumption against prosecution after five years, as proposed in the Bill, I say that this absolutely does not remove the Damoclean sword of prosecution, because it is still possible for prosecution to take place after the five years if the Attorney-General so instructs, as the Minister reminded us in her opening speech.
Secondly, as we have heard often this afternoon, by not proceeding to prosecution under the conditions set out in the Bill, we lay ourselves open to investigation by the International Criminal Court. Many experienced and learned commentators would agree with this view. I am afraid that I am not convinced by the placatory words of Ministers and others on this. Once the ICC decides to investigate a person’s conduct, we are looking at an extremely lengthy process, as I have cause to know.
Frankly, given what I have already said, a presumption against prosecution should be withdrawn from the Bill. It would do little, if anything, to relieve the stress on our service personnel who had been accused of an offence and it would take us into the territory of the ICC having an excuse to bring a prosecution.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Blower.
Baroness Blower (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to join a debate in your Lordships’ House and to follow such erudite speakers as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and, of course, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti.
I have taken the opportunity of this debate to read widely on the issues which the Bill seeks to address. I have found that a wide range of organisations and individuals consider the Bill to be flawed in its entirety. It is on that basis that I advance just a few of the arguments that I have found persuasive in coming to a position of opposition to the Bill.
I am well aware that giving the Armed Forces more legal protection was a Conservative Party manifesto commitment, but, as Professor Michael Clarke, former director of the Royal United Services Institute and visiting professor in the Department of War Studies at King’s College, has written:
“The Bill is effectively in two parts, both of which stand to affect the UK’s international reputation”—
he did not mean in a good way. His commentary concludes:
“As for ‘Global Britain’, the Bill sends some very disturbing messages to allies who are as concerned as us about the health of the rules-based international order, and opens up some intriguing possibilities for our adversaries, who love to claim international legitimacy for their blatantly illegal behaviour.”
It seems that many who have drawn up commentaries on the Bill agree that it undermines Britain’s obligations under the UN Convention against Torture and the Geneva conventions. On that basis, neither part of the Bill is acceptable.
Testimony submitted by the Royal British Legion in appendices to its evidence on Part 2 of the Bill lays out clearly that the six-year limit is a problem. The legion expresses concern that such a limit creates “a unique deviation” from the Limitation Acts of the UK. Rather than helping armed services personnel and their dependants, this would seem explicitly designed to reduce the number of claims against the Ministry of Defence.
The Royal British Legion offers a long but not exhaustive list of reasons why claims might not be made within six years, including: concern over impact on a career; progressive conditions such as hearing loss; conditions where attributability may not be established or realised until much later; lack of knowledge of the ability to make a claim, especially in the case of bereaved families who may not see the MoD as a liable employer; changing external knowledge in cases where new evidence comes to light on the health impact of historic MoD decision-making; and, possibly, ingrained help-seeking stigma in the Armed Forces community. These would all suggest that, rather than being of assistance to forces personnel, such a limit will precisely deter claims against the Ministry of Defence or diminish the possibility of their success.
Part 1 of the Bill is equally flawed. Its intention is ostensibly, as we have heard, to reduce and therefore protect the armed services from investigation and reinvestigation of historical events. However, the Bill does not address, as the briefing from Justice explains, the measures that could be taken to ensure that allegations are properly investigated and resolved within a reasonable period of time. Investigations should of course always be prompt and thorough. The presumption against prosecution after five years would breach obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR to conduct an effective investigation into unlawful killings and torture.
There is much to be said about the proposed triple lock, which would ensure that prosecution after five years could happen but would be exceptional. I leave it to the lawyers in your Lordships’ House to discuss the role in the triple lock of the Attorney-General, and whether a presumption against prosecution offends against the articles of the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court. However, it must be the case that, if this Bill once again calls into question adherence to the rule of law, it puts us all on a perilous path.
Sally Yates, US Deputy Attorney-General, appointed by President Obama in 2015, famously quoted Martin Luther King Jnr saying that
“the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice”.
But she added a flourish of her own when she said that it does not get there on its own. I am sure that she had in mind that the international rule of law needs to be securely in place and observed to assist in this, as I am sure the Minister agrees.
Lord Woolf (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is with satisfaction that I follow the last speaker, because I have very little to say about this Bill, other than that it is clearly in need of drastic treatment.
The Bill has two sides, one in relation to the criminal law and the other in relation to the civil law. With regard to the civil law, the obvious course to take is for a consultation to take place with the Lord Chief Justice on the handling of civil claims, with a degree of expertise being built up in the judiciary to ensure that the claims are properly handled. This could be readily done, and it would not involve the departure that Part 2 of the Bill involves, with inconsistencies that are impossible to justify.
So the Bill must go on now—we owe no less to our gallant forces, who have been affected by—[Inaudible]—investigated.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former honorary colonel of A Squadron, RMLY, the Staffordshire Yeomanry. I pay tribute to our Armed Forces who, in often appalling circumstances, keep us protected. Our debt to them is substantial.
We should take great note of the words of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, the noble Lord, Lord West, and my noble friend Lord Robathan, and the many former military noble Lords taking part in this debate. They are the vastly experienced voices of sense and wisdom, and we ignore their words at our peril.
I shall take up very little of your Lordships’ time in giving a welcome to the Bill, which of course, among a number of other matters, delivers my party’s manifesto commitment to tackle the disgraceful issue of vexatious claims. Noble Lords will doubtless recall the scandalous behaviour of Phil Shiner and Public Interest Lawyers. I and many others are delighted not only that they received their just comeuppance but that Her Majesty’s Government sought to tackle this issue full-on by the publication of this Bill. It is not before time, and I shall give it my support.
As have most noble Lords, I have received communications from a number of bodies, mainly objecting to, or questioning the contents of, Part 2 of the Bill. I have taken considerable notice of the comments made by the Royal British Legion, an excellent organisation for which I have the highest regard. It does a fantastic job and I support it whenever I am able to. I am less sympathetic to many of the others who have sent lobbying notes that I have received. I understand exactly where the Legion is coming from, and I am certain that your Lordships will scrutinise the arguments it promotes during the passage of the Bill. This is what this House exists for: scrutiny and improvement. It has to be said, however, that the Bill had a clear journey through the other place. We shall have to see what happens in this House. There would appear to be a need for a variety of amendments, and the Government would be very wise to listen carefully and to exercise an amount of flexibility when the time comes. But in conclusion, I wish the Bill well and I shall support it.
Lord Walney (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl and, by coincidence, to almost mirror his opening in saying that it is a privilege to listen to the weight of expertise and experience in your Lordships’ House on this profoundly important matter.
We have heard from three former Chiefs of the Defence Staff, the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Stirrup, Lord Houghton and Lord Boyce; a former Chief of the General Staff, the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt; a former First Sea Lord, my noble friend Lord West; and a former Secretary-General of NATO, my noble friend Lord Robertson. All of them have raised serious questions over the constitution of this Bill as it currently stands, and I hope that that alone will prompt Ministers to pause, reflect and reconsider before we enter Committee.
I will focus my brief remarks on consideration of the potential impact of these measures on Britain’s wider national security and place in the world. In other settings, a number of noble Lords who have contributed today have set out the view that the chief threat to the United Kingdom in decades hence will come from hostile powers seeking to loosen and subvert the rules-based order that binds the international community together; to sow disharmony and despair among those who built up the multilateral system after the Second World War; and to build a new world order governed not by the consent of member states but by naked authoritarian power and fear, in which honour and the global rule of law is swept aside as a naive irrelevance.
There is a clear need for legislation, as has been compellingly set out again today, and the Government should be commended for maintaining their commitment to bring forward a Bill and get something on to the statute book. Yet this is not a case of simply choosing between practical measures to protect our troops and an academic debate over the strategic drivers of geopolitics. Those in our Armed Forces who deserve increased protection are of course the same men and women who will be placed in harm’s way in any future conflict.
The laws governing such conflict are but one part of the rules-based framework over which there is an ongoing struggle, but they are not an insignificant part, so we should be aware of the potential for significant change, as several of these measures would currently constitute, and the way in which this could influence what may be a fragile balance of power between ourselves and our adversaries in the years ahead. We should proceed only if we can be confident that what we propose will not produce a damaging ripple effect, weakening vital global safeguards such as the Geneva conventions, which have been mentioned a number of times today, and indeed the threat of opening up the United Kingdom to the International Criminal Court.
Professor Michael Clarke, formerly of RUSI, who was mentioned by a recent speaker, put it well recently when he warned that, if we overstep the mark with this Bill, malign actors may gleefully seize on the precedent that we set, dragging our reputation down as part of a tactic to avoid international sanctions and condemnation for significantly worse and more damaging measures. The way that the United Kingdom projects itself matters greatly. We should not disavow or diminish the impact of our determination to uphold vital international norms on the battlefield and beyond.
So let us test the arguments thoroughly in Committee to ensure that the final Bill presented to Her Majesty is one in which we can all genuinely take pride.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which recently produced a report on the Bill and the whole issue. I hope this will be helpful later, in Committee and on Report. I acknowledge that many Members of this House who have spoken have enormous senior military or ministerial experience in defence. I cannot claim to emulate that, but I will mention one thing. A few years ago, I was invited by the MoD to join a delegation to visit Afghanistan; we went to Camp Bastion and Kandahar. Although I spent only a few days there, it was a totally revealing, fascinating and helpful experience. I came away with an even greater respect for our Armed Forces than I had at the outset. They dealt with very adverse conditions; their morale, friendship and positive attitudes were pretty good. At that time, there were some concerns about the quality of the Army’s equipment, and I asked them about that. Very loyally, they would not bite and did not want to comment at all about whether their equipment was up to standard. My respect for the Armed Forces was enhanced enormously, and they deserve a bit better than this Bill.
I will look at two considerations in particular. First, what does the Bill do for the reputation of the Armed Forces? Not all that much. Secondly, what does it do for our international reputation? The international reputation of this country is at stake and I fear that, as drafted, the Bill will lead to damage to how we are seen abroad. The House has already heard many mentions of the possible problem of members of the Armed Forces being brought before the International Criminal Court. The Bill makes that much more likely.
The JCHR learnt that MoD investigations were frequently prolonged and that there were repeat investigations. This is quite unacceptable, because there was no sense of finality for the soldiers charged; it put them in an impossible position. It was generally agreed that MoD investigations had not been adequate. This is not addressed in the Bill, but I understand that the Government have agreed to look at it. This is really urgent because it is disgraceful that our Armed Forces have to put up with this type of threat when it is simply the inefficiency of the investigation system that is putting them in this difficulty.
I do not like the five-year period for presumption against prosecution. If the MoD Service Prosecuting Authority is satisfied by the evidence, why is there a need for a further limit? Surely what is in the public interest must be the test, not an arbitrary time limit. Initially, this was going to be 10 years, but the Government reduced it to five. I wonder why.
My most fierce anxiety, which has been reflected in many of this afternoon’s speeches, is that the presumption against prosecution does not exempt torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. The presumption must surely be amended so that it does not apply to these. This is the most disgraceful part of the Bill and, judging by the debate so far, it is reasonable to predict that this House will reject it. Let us hope that it does, because it is a slur on this country, and the Armed Forces, that we have to protect them in this way when the likelihood of any of them being subject to this provision is very small, and that is my concern.
The JCHR report says that
“the introduction of a presumption against prosecution may mean that members of the British Armed Forces are at risk of being prosecuted either in another State or before the International Criminal Court. This is a real risk if it is considered that this presumption (combined with the existing concerns about the inadequacy of MoD investigations) leads other States or the ICC to conclude that the UK is unwilling or unable to investigate and prosecute for war crimes.”
We have heard quite a lot about the need for powers to strike out vexatious claims. They are utterly reprehensible but, fortunately, very rare. In any case, the MoD Service Prosecuting Authority has the power to strike down such claims, as I am sure it has done and will always do.
Finally, I appreciate what my noble friend Lord Hain said about Northern Ireland. We will have some tough debates about it in the future. He certainly set down some clear indications of how many of us will wish to debate that issue.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who served along with us in Northern Ireland as a Northern Ireland Minister. I have some deep concerns about the provisions in the Bill, as I believe they would act contrary to human rights conventions and put a time limit on justice by decriminalising torture after five years. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which he is a member, has pointed to the various failures in the Bill, with its lack of proper regard for well-known human rights conventions. Other commentators have stated that the new Bill plans to ignore conventions in protecting military personnel and civilians in overseas operations. The Bill seems more about protecting the Ministry of Defence than veterans or civilians.
In fact, the Law Society of England and Wales has been critical of the Bill; it believes it goes beyond the Government’s stated aim of reducing spurious claims against service personnel and victims. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has stated that the “presumption against prosecutions” in Part 1 is
“akin to a statute of limitations”.
I note what the Minister has said—that that is not the intention—but the commission has said that Part 1 will clearly be
“seen as incompatible with the international human rights framework and customary international law.”
The Joint Committee on Human Rights published its report on the Bill on 29 October, following the end of Committee in the House of Commons. It criticised the Bill and argued that several changes needed to be made, saying that there was
“little to no evidence that … cases with no case to answer”
were being allowed to proceed in the courts. It said that the statutory presumptions against prosecution in the Bill were unjustified, and that it was concerned that the Bill could breach the UK’s obligations under international humanitarian law, international human rights law and international criminal law. The report included a recommendation that Clauses 1 to 7 should be removed from the Bill. The Joint Committee also criticised the introduction of a time limit to human rights and civil litigation, arguing that this risked breaching the UK’s human rights obligations and preventing access to justice, and that the more important problem was of long-running and flawed investigations. It said that the MoD needed to improve the way investigations were conducted.
The noble Lord, Lord Hain, like other noble Lords, has already referred to the situation in Northern Ireland. I note that the Bill does not refer to Northern Ireland but there are serious issues there. On 18 March 2020, when the Bill was published, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland published in tandem a letter about the way that issues to do with veterans and legacy there would be dealt with. Can the Minister update us on that? Like the noble Lord, I believe that the only way to deal with legacy issues in Northern Ireland is to go to back to the Stormont House agreement to deal with them in that methodical, fair and equitable way—and where no organisation, whether the Armed Forces or the paramilitaries, republican or loyalist, gets any amnesty for any wrongdoing that may have taken place which resulted in untold misery right across our community.
I look forward to Committee, but there is one important premise: time limits should not be placed on accountability and justice. I hope that the Minister will make that the hallmark of this legislation and seek to redress the problems of the Bill with further amendments.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall concentrate on Clause 12. The international court will accept that it is primarily a matter for the state requiring derogation to judge the imminence and severity of the threat faced. But the court is not going to give a free pass. Has the state gone beyond what is strictly required by the exigencies of the situation? The danger must be actual, clear, present and imminent. Derogation will not be allowed because of a mere apprehension of potential danger.
The link between a public emergency threatening the life of the nation and an overseas operation must be established. To quote Lord Bingham:
“It is hard to think that these conditions”—
of Article 15—
“could ever be met when a state had chosen to conduct an overseas peacekeeping operation, however dangerous the conditions, from which it could withdraw.”
Put simply, there is no guarantee that the Secretary of State will gain derogation for an overseas operation. A prior hurdle for the Secretary of State would almost certainly be that parliamentary approval, possibly even beforehand, must be gained.
There are further historical issues. When the Human Rights Act 1998 was being debated, and I first raised concerns about the legal conflicts between it and the Armed Forces Acts, the Lord Chancellor for the Government argued that it would always be possible to derogate and clear the high bar required. But since then the Act’s reach, both territorially and temporarily, has been extended by judgments in the European court and our own Supreme Court.
There is a further problem. Much of the UK’s resistance to these enlarging findings was based on the submission that the HRA applied territorially only to the UK. Were the Secretary of State to seek derogation in support of an overseas operation, this would mean the UK’s acceptance of increased territorial reach, and so would be inconsistent with our previous, strongly argued position.
So my conclusion is that Clause 12 is flawed. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, that it is no more than window dressing and it would be more honest to delete it. The Secretary of State does not need a statutory diktat to consider derogation. The possibility was accepted way back when the Human Rights Act became law.
When the forthcoming human rights legislation review takes place, it should consider how to resolve its incompatibilities with the Armed Forces Act. The most critical concern should be how to protect a commander in the heat of battle from having to weigh up the concerns of human rights legislation with the command and direction of armed conflict when the pressure of events leaves little or no time to consider anything more than the successful execution of a military action. The boundaries of combat immunity should be clear before conflict, not established seriatim years later in a court of law. I regret that this even more worrying aspect of the interaction between the convention and armed conflict has not been addressed fully in the Bill.
I have one final thought. Legislation of critical importance to the activities of our armed forces should be consolidated into the Armed Forces Act. Having a single source of legislation critically important to the Armed Forces would help those in the forces and their legal authorities and would avoid inconsistencies in the separate legislation. This Bill does that for the Human Rights Act and the Limitation Act: why not, where relevant, for the Armed Forces Act? The quinquennial reviews would then ensure that these difficult issues were regularly considered.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
My Lords, I first declare my interest as a practising solicitor and as the president of the West Yorkshire branch of the Soldiers’, Sailors’ and Airmen’s Families Association. No one could or has claimed that the issues bringing about this legislation are straightforward. One only has to look at the way it has progressed through the other place to recognise that there are many complexities, and the emotions which have been shown are a further indication of how much is at stake.
I support this Bill. It is a clear and timely attempt to find a way through. It acknowledges the vital and valued role of our Armed Forces in carrying out their duties to protect us and our values all over the world. It also acknowledges that being engaged on military operations is not like any other occupation. Fighting battles is both dangerous and testing. All those who do so need our support and gratitude. Sometimes the pressures of conflict inevitably result in behaviour which is outside the norms of civilian conduct, and when that results in unauthorised actions and other adverse results, it is perfectly proper to investigate it in a way that is appropriate and controlled, and to prosecute if necessary.
The international community has recognised the special features of conflict over the years. The Geneva convention, which has been referred to by many speakers, dates from 1929. It laid down requirements, especially for wartime prisoner treatment, and established the basis for the protection of civilians in a war zone. It was ratified by 196 countries and remains in effect. International humanitarian law is based on a series of accepted treaties which appreciate the legitimate use of force and is the basis for military operations. Abuse of those provisions can ultimately be brought to the international criminal tribunals.
Within the armed services there are clear codes of discipline and punishment and I would suggest, despite some noble Lords suggesting otherwise, that our country leads the world in maintaining those codes. I would submit that, with modifications, these should remain as the first base for our military engagements and would normally offer the right balance between our ability to take action and the need to avoid unnecessary suffering or abuse.
However, as other speakers have said, the complications afforded by the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 are now matters which have had direct implications for this area. The two codes simply do not mix. Some noble Lords are, in my view, trying to confuse even further by trying to mix them. This has unfortunately resulted not only in confusion but, in some cases, great unfairness. The emergence of the so-called shocking “lawfare”, with bad and egregious lawyers trying to apply strict human rights law to conflict situations, has produced results which I do not believe are acceptable. Even the European Court of Human Rights, in the 2014 case of Hassan, accepted that any application of the convention should be respectful of the wider and more understood international humanitarian law.
Because no previous Government have effectively tackled these contradictions, large numbers of vexatious claims have been encouraged, which sadly have eclipsed some genuine and disturbing cases but which—based on the wrongful use of domestic legislation—have left service men and women in unfair jeopardy. The proposals in this Bill are rather modest, but necessary. Unfortunately, they cannot be retrospective, and I hope the Government will consider making amendment to ease the terrible burdens lying on the shoulders of some veterans.
I know some noble Lords are unhappy about the possibility of any derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights. I am, in general, a supporter of the convention and would certainly not wish us to abandon it or emasculate domestic application. However, I do not think that a specific derogation when we are engaged in conflict will be anything other than the proper course, and any derogation is a permissible step under Article 15, which refers to being
“in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation.”
Ultimately, anything we can do to clarify the responsibilities of our Armed Forces when engaged in warfare must be helpful. We owe it to those who risk their lives to protect us to offer them understanding and full support.
Lord Hendy (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I share, without repeating them, the concerns expressed by so many noble Lords over Part 1 of the Bill and the proposal in Clause 12 to consider derogation from the European convention. I wish to focus my few minutes on Part 2, on civil claims. As a barrister, I resent and refute the denigration of members of that honourable profession uttered by some noble Lords today, but I will not indulge myself by developing that further.
Some years ago, I was instructed in a matter that was very different from my usual diet of industrial relations cases. Mrs Smith, as I will call her to protect her anonymity, was a dignified lady who lost her son in the Iraq war of 2003. He was a tank commander, killed with a fellow crew member when his tank was hit by two high-explosive shells.
The facts emerged over time. First, she learned that the shells were fired by a British tank in an adjacent battle group. She felt not the slightest urge to sue the commander of that tank—friendly-fire accidents are all too frequent—but over the years more relevant material emerged. There was an inquest. Reports from various prolonged official inquiries by the MoD and the military police were obtained. Documents slowly came to light. A military expert was instructed on behalf of the bereaved.
Eventually it became clear that there had been serious failings on the part of the Ministry of Defence. Modern sophisticated combat identification equipment, urged on the MoD long before 2003 by the National Audit Office and a Commons Select Committee, had not been fitted. Up-to-date identification training courses had not been provided to either of the tank commanders. There were other errors too, involving the demarcation of arcs of fire and so on. Nearly 15 years after her son’s death, without any suggestion of any delay on her part or indeed that of her lawyers, the case was finally settled with the payment of a significant sum to her by the MoD—as usual, without an admission of liability.
My point is that it takes a very long time in such complex cases, where an individual is up against a well-resourced bureaucracy such as the MoD, for that person, having dealt with her own grief and change of circumstances, to appreciate that there might be a claim to be brought; to find someone to act for her; to make inquiries; to obtain documents; to seek the evidence of witnesses and experts; and then to evaluate the prospects of success and decide whether to bring a case and face the possible ordeal of going to court.
There is already a statute of limitation; no more is needed. My concern with Part 2 of the Bill is that the absolute six-year time limit will deny many—not all but certainly some—of our Mrs Smiths access to justice. Let us be clear: shutting the door of the court to our Mrs Smiths is a denial of justice to their sons and daughters who served this country. Who benefits from such a bar? Certainly not serving men and women or their families. This part of the Bill is plainly intended to protect the MoD against genuine and meritorious claims. I do not see how it is supportable, and I ask the Minister how she justifies people like Mrs Smith being barred from the doors of the court if their claim takes more than six years to formulate.
I say that especially given that the Government have announced that they will not proceed with plans to introduce a new combat compensation scheme for Armed Forces personnel and veterans, pursuant to the Better Combat Compensation consultation. Part 2 is neither necessary nor acceptable.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, whose powerful account the Government would do well to listen to.
In introducing this debate, the Minister referred, with apparent disapproval, to the increasing judicialisation of war. That surprised me. Over a significant period, this party in government has shown strong international leadership against rape as a weapon of war. I hope that the Minister’s words do not signal a move away from that; perhaps she can reassure me on that point.
My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who has considerable experience and expertise in the oversight of criminal investigation and policing, focused on the detail of the Bill, so I will focus more on what it could do, if passed, to our international position and standing. I say “if passed” because, while other noble Lords have talked about seeking to improve it, it has become clear that the Bill is profoundly ill conceived. Many respected human rights organisations are calling for it to be stopped, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, noted.
It is worth thinking for a second about the international context in which this Bill appears before us. What does the UK look like to the rest of the world? From today, Boris Johnson is vying with Jair Bolsonaro as the most prominent remaining global leader of Trumpism, and is demonstrating that with his plan to reverse election promises on international aid. We also have the continuing chaos of Brexit and the tragically world-leading disaster that is our Covid-19 death rate. In summary, the UK is not starting from a great place in the international arena—a point made powerfully by the Prime Minister’s predecessor on the front page of today’s Daily Mail.
This Bill is clearly in line with the Trumpisation, tabloidisation, coarsening and simplification of our national dialogue—reduced down to slogans and knee-jerk reactions—that has marked the past few years, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, noted. We have been in line with developments in other parts of the world but, if we continue down this path, we will look increasingly isolated. The threat to our reputation was noted even by a supporter of the Bill—the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton—as well as by the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, who highlighted the risk it presents in encouraging other human rights abuses around the world.
The Bill does not square with some of the other directions that the Government are taking on human rights—notably their stance on China, where they are showing tentative signs of stepping up over the genocide against the Uighurs. I am confident that your Lordships’ House will try to assist the Government with that in the Trade Bill, speaking out as a signatory to the Joint Declaration on Hong Kong over China’s breaking of that international treaty. I declare my position on the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong.
It is almost as though we have two different Governments tugging in opposite directions. It is a great pity that the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy has been delayed by the Covid-19 pandemic. It will surely look at these issues and whether it is, as I strongly suggest it is, in the interests of our national security and the stability of the global order on which we depend for us to line up with nations that are seen as global leaders on human rights, sustainability and poverty alleviation. This includes nations such as New Zealand, Norway and Costa Rica, whose diplomacy would be greatly boosted by the presence of the UK among the ranks of those who understand that co-operation, not competition; peace, not war; aid, not weapons; healthcare, not corruption; and stability, not runaway climate change, are the way forward to a genuinely secure world.
However, this Bill points absolutely in the opposite direction. The highly regarded Nation Brands Index already has us ranked relatively low for governance. The Bill would surely be a huge blow in that regard. To quote no less a body than the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Bill runs the risk of
“harming the UK’s reputation as a global leader on human rights, and weakening our compliance with universal standards”.
So, we are at a crunch point. There is a real risk that, even if the integrated review comes up with a truly transformative visionary plan for the UK to become a leading force for peace and democracy—living within the planetary limits—we have already damaged so badly the world’s view of us with this Bill, the CHIS Bill and the Trade Bill that such a plan is not possible.
Finally, the Minister talked in her introduction about reflecting the governing party’s commitment to armed forces personnel and veterans. How much more that might reflect reality if it were a move to provide better wages and conditions—particularly better housing and mental health services—and to ensure that they are not put into deadly situations without better planning and equipment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, noted, rather than to take away their rights, as the noble Lords, Lord Touhig and Lord Hendy, pointed out.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
My Lords, this is a difficult subject: a complex Bill, which, despite its detractors, is not as bad from the perspective of human rights as it looks on first reading. Members of the Armed Forces should not be hounded for the rest of their lives, having acted to protect us in, and from, circumstances that most of us could never imagine, so I hesitate to pontificate on their actions.
However, there is a feeling of unfairness, given the perception that so many terrorists escape justice. Also, one’s instincts are that there should not be a statute of limitations for war crimes—I would be the first to say that Nazi criminals should be pursued and prosecuted for the rest of their lives—so it is worth considering whether to exclude all war crimes from the five-year regime.
The Bill will not prevent prosecution of serious allegations of torture which are supported by evidence, but filters prosecutions that take place after the lapse of five years. During those five years, all the usual rules for prosecutions apply, with no holds barred, and there is no guarantee of immunity from prosecution after five years. A judgment that it should happen might still be made if it is in the public interest and the evidence is sufficient, as well as other pertinent considerations. A similar limitation is present in Part 2, which imposes a six-year time limit on claims by service personnel injured through negligence during overseas operations. It might be better, in the alternative, to set up a scheme of no-fault compensation rather than putting the injured and their families through the court system.
The Bill emphasises the possibility of derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to overseas operations. That derogation should only ever be exceptional and should certainly not be normalised. It must be remembered that derogation can be challenged in our courts and in the Court of Human Rights. There are other situations in the law where the consent of the Attorney-General is required before prosecution; this is therefore not exceptional.
The important standard in all these discussions should be the law of the International Criminal Court. I posit that it should be avoided at all costs and that decisions and operations in scope of this Bill should be carried out in the shadow of the law—namely, the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction. None of the largest states with the largest armed forces is party to the treaty of Rome which established the court—China, India, Russia and the US—with the honourable exception of this country, though the Government have rightly indicated that the court needs reform. The court was set up for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. One has but to mention genocide to see how ineffective the court’s jurisdiction has been: too slow, too late, too retrospective and, some say, too Africa-focused.
However, once indicted, an individual’s reputation is gone for ever, even if subsequently cleared. The ICC has recently examined alleged crimes committed by UK nationals in the context of the Iraq conflict and occupation from 2003 to 2008, including murder and torture. After some six years of consideration, the court prosecutor said in December that, although it was reasonable to believe that crimes had been committed and command failures had occurred, the UK was genuinely willing to investigate them and to prosecute.
What should drive decisions to prosecute or not prosecute under this Bill is the standard laid down by the ICC—thoroughness and genuineness. Arguably, military investigations into incidents have been inadequate, insufficiently resourced, insufficiently independent and not done in a timely manner. Nevertheless, what the Bill should control are repeated investigations; it would be wise to restore the view of Lord Bingham, whose name is synonymous with the rule of law, that the Human Rights Act should not have extraterritorial application. Quality of decision-making rather than length of time should be the goal. I suggest that the Bill, once passed, should not start in operation until the investigation scheme has been reformed.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am a former—[Inaudible]—RAF pilot who nearly saw service and action at Suez. My son was in the front line in the retaking of Kuwait.
This is an important Bill, not just because it was in the manifesto of the Conservative Party but because its progress will be watched overseas, particularly by the Commonwealth and our fellow members of NATO. It is a sad reflection on modern society that the Bill is needed at all. I reflect on the end of the Second World War, when there was a huge effort to make peace work. The vehicle conceived was the Geneva Convention of 1949 and subsequent additional conventions attached to it. It was a convention that sought to ensure a proper legal framework if war should break out again—the relevant law for armed conflict.
I shall quote the late Sir Desmond de Silva, a former UN-sponsored chief prosecutor for a war crimes tribunal. He said that the European Convention on Human Rights, on which the British Human Rights Act is based, was wholly inappropriate for application in combat and battlefield conditions. The law that should operate in such circumstances is the law of armed conflict, otherwise known as international humanitarian law. This greatly respected man, who is no longer with us, went on to say that
“I am quite satisfied that accountability in war is best dealt with by applying law that is specifically designed for war conditions.”
There we have it.
At the same time, society has been changing. Issues of human rights have been expanding. The European Convention on Human Rights and its territorial applicability grows ever wider. Organisations such as Amnesty International, Freedom from Torture and dozens of others have sprung up—all of them very different from the International Committee of the Red Cross, which we all respect. As those organisations expanded, so did the media. Untrammelled, instant responses with no independent verification were taken to extraordinary lengths by some of our TV companies, such as Channel 4 and its fake films and propaganda in “Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields”. There are other examples affecting Syria and Iraq.
The House knows that the broad thrust of the Bill is there to establish new restrictions on bringing procedures against current and past UK Armed Forces on overseas assignments. I, for one, absolutely support the Bill.
Let me give an example of a challenge in another country. As Members of the upper House, noble Lords will be well aware that I have been deeply involved, in detail, with Sri Lanka. That country had a 30-year insurrection from the Tamil Tigers, a proscribed organisation that killed off all the moderate Tamils. That war came to fruition, starting on 1 January 2009 and finishing on 18 May. I made a Freedom of Information Act inquiry because I was told by the UN that there were 40,000 casualties. I asked the Foreign Office about Colonel Gash’s independent dispatches, which took two years to obtain. They made it clear that no war crimes were carried out in Sri Lanka in that war. Therefore, my request is that maybe we also need to use the Freedom of Information Act to ensure that our Foreign Office releases dispatches from our observers who watch war anywhere around the world.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, consider the worldwide message, not least for the people of—those subject to the Governments of—Russia, China, Myanmar, Uganda and any other places suffering under manipulative oppressive regimes, that we are even considering this legislation, with all its inherent questioning of what has been the aspiration of the international rule of law. At this time of so much ruthlessness and turmoil in the world, we should, by contrast, be seen to strengthen, not diminish, the ideals that inspired Eleanor Roosevelt and her fellow pioneers in their tireless efforts, in the aftermath of World War II, to enshrine the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the indispensable cornerstone of peace, stability and social well-being across the world.
We can be proud of the key part consistently played by the UK and its legal profession in carrying this cause forward. This is no time to weaken, especially just as Joe Biden and Kamala Harris take the helm in Washington: they need and deserve our unwavering commitment to human rights. Here, again, I quote the words of Lord Guthrie, former colonel commandant of the Special Air Service and former Chief of the Defence Staff:
“Torture is illegal. It is a crime in both peace and war that no exceptional circumstances can permit ... There can be no exceptions to our laws, and no attempts to bend them. Those who break them should be judged in court.”
Is this Bill evidence-based? Just what is the specific evidence to begin to justify it? Why is there no recognition of all the provisions that exist to meet its supposed concerns—not least in the European Convention on Human Rights itself? The international rule of law is not an end in itself; it embodies the values of civilised consensus, which, recognising the demands of our highly interdependent world, gives it a moral authority that we disrespect at our peril and to our shame. The responsibility for sustaining our commitment must never be allowed to fall solely on those on the front line of conflict, with all its barbaric and cruel provocation; it has to be a culture of responsibility that runs throughout society as a whole, not least in government and the leadership within the armed and security services at all levels.
It is essential to spell out why the provisions of international law, and the provisions it encompasses, are so essential. It is also essential to spell out why we must therefore be second to none in our commitment to them, why any weakening in our resolve plays into the hands of the very people who seek to destroy our society, and why, in effect, this is treasonable. Time limits have no place whatever in this. Adherence to timeless justice must obviously apply to our own personnel, seeking compensation for mental or physical harm during active service.
The Bill is unworthy of the United Kingdom and its people. It endangers a historical recognition of what so many have loyally contributed to the defence of civilisation. It undermines the many service men and women who strive to uphold the values by which we should be judged. Essentially, we must never forget that we are engaged in a historic battle for hearts and minds. As President Biden said today, “Democracy has prevailed”; he also called for hope, not fear, to be the lodestar. We are challenged; let us rise to that challenge.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB) [V]
My Lords, I believe the Bill has its heart in the right place, and much of it I support, particularly Part 1. However, occasionally it loses its bearings and it is certainly open to misunderstanding.
I start with two brief matters. First is a declaration of interest, although really it is a proud boast: over 60 years ago, as a national serviceman, I was on active—but happily not too active—service abroad. Secondly, in preparing for today, I have been helped by the Policy Exchange paper by Professor Ekins and the former Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, John Larkin, Queen’s Counsel.
Some appear to regard Part 1 as giving immunity or impunity to our forces after five years. In truth, it does no such thing. That point has been made several times but cannot be overemphasised. What it is designed to achieve is the clear recognition by those responsible for deciding, as the years pass, whether it is in the public interest to prosecute that, generally speaking, the more time that has passed, the less likely it is that prosecution will be appropriate. This is so for obvious good reasons. First, the longer that has passed, the less likely it is that prosecution will produce a true and fair outcome. Recollections fade, witnesses disappear, and the singular challenges faced in battlefield conflict come to be overlooked. Second is the important principle of finality, which becomes particularly compelling when the question arises after earlier investigations—often, as we have heard, a whole series of these—and especially when the person has been told that he is not to be prosecuted. Our brave forces, as the right reverend Prelate said, should not be hung out to dry.
But the five-year provision is subject always to exceptions, and the Bill expressly provides for some in the case of sexual offences: they are excluded from the Bill by Schedule 1. The noble Lord, Lord King, wondered why, and I suggest it is for good reason. First, such offences often do take longer to come to light, and they are altogether less likely to arise in the context of battlefield conflict. Secondly, late prosecutions may well be appropriate where, despite previous investigations, “compelling new evidence” comes to light. This is a concept well known to the law in particular; it allows, as an exception to the double jeopardy rule, the possibility of a second prosecution even where the accused has already been acquitted by a jury.
I acknowledge that late prosecution may well also be appropriate, and this is not currently dealt with in the case of allegations of torture. But even then, the passage of time may well be of relevance, as the whole series of post-Iraqi judicial inquiries established. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, referred to one of these. It is all too possible to fabricate these claims and for false allegations of this sort to be made.
In short, therefore, there is no impunity—if public interest remains in prosecution, the Bill does not preclude it. What it does, importantly, is to dictate the basic policy to be followed: to highlight the particular considerations which the prosecution should have in mind when deciding not only if there is sufficient evidence but whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. Of course, that explains the requirement in Clause 5 for the consent of the Attorney-General in England and a law officer in Northern Ireland. Indeed, one may suggest that provision should be made for a law officer in Scotland too and, perhaps, for law officers’ consent before the five years are even up.
I turn very briefly to Part 2 of the Bill, which is much more problematic. I recognise that there are difficulties arising from the 4/3 majority decision of the Supreme Court in Smith in 2013. I rather share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that, instead of time limiting these claims, one should introduce a generous no-fault compensation scheme.
Finally, on the human rights aspect, again in common with the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, I share the doubts of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on the value of Clause 8. I would prefer to limit the extraterritorial application of the Human Rights Act itself, as Lord Bingham would have done in the Al-Skeini case in the House of Lords in 2007.
Lord Astor of Hever (Con) [V]
My Lords, I join my noble friend the Minister in paying tribute to our Armed Forces and their families. I welcome the intent of the Bill and believe that it will provide greater certainty for service personnel and veterans in respect of vexatious claims concerning the prosecution of historical events that occurred in armed conflict overseas.
I am only too aware that many claims were made without foundation and have subsequently been discredited. This caused unnecessary distress through repeated investigations of members of the Armed Forces. I therefore welcome the Bill’s further safeguards to address the impact of those claims. I also welcome the introduction of measures to consider the impact of the mental health of veterans involved in legal proceedings as a result of overseas operations.
This Bill polarises opinion, so it is important to bring back some objectivity in the scrutiny of this legislation. It is understandable that we can lose objectivity when discussing issues such as torture, war crimes and genocide. However, there is nothing in the Bill that prevents the prosecution of such acts, even outside the period of five years. There is nothing in the Bill that prevents the investigation of such offences, and there is nothing that suggests that those tasked with defending our country are able to act with impunity. If any criminal behaviour is alleged to have taken place, individuals can be prosecuted.
The triple lock will give service personnel and veterans greater certainty that the unique pressures placed on them during overseas operations will be taken into account when prosecution decisions are made concerning alleged historical offences. My reading of the Bill is that there is no lock to prosecutions—only three additional steps in the decision-making process for a prosecution to proceed.
The first step is an exceptionality test, to be applied by an independent prosecutor. Although I cannot say how a prosecutor should apply this test, I would guess that serious breaches of the Geneva conventions, for instance, are not the norm but would be exceptional.
The second step ensures that the context of the overseas operation is rightly considered. Yes, the prosecutor will take such factors into account, but making this a statutory requirement sends a strong signal to our Armed Forces that their unique circumstances will be at the forefront of the decision-making process.
The final step is the consent of the Attorney-General. This consent function is not new; an AG already has responsibility for giving consent to war crimes prosecutions. These three additional steps do not amount to the state being unwilling or unable to prosecute, which means that we would continue to adhere to our international obligations and does not increase our risk of the International Criminal Court seeking to prosecute our Armed Forces personnel.
May I ask my noble friend the Minister: what do veterans think about the measures? Is there general support from our veterans? How have the proposals changed as a result of public consultation?
Finally, several noble Lords have referred to the Northern Ireland Troubles. Having served in the Army there, I look forward to seeing the legislation to address the legacy of Operation Banner being prepared by the Northern Ireland Office. When might we see this?
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome this Bill and look forward to the detailed scrutiny that will be given it by the many experts and ex-senior Armed Forces people who serve in your Lordships’ House. I pay tribute to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Johnny Mercer, in the other place, who fought very hard to get this Bill right through Committee unscathed.
Of course, the Long Title excludes the Armed Forces acting within the borders of the United Kingdom, as has been mentioned by other noble Lords today—those involved in the Northern Ireland Troubles, the Operation Banner soldiers. They are not just soldiers but police and members of the security services, civil servants and even politicians. The object of some of the lawfare operations is to get Members of this House, even former Ministers, into court so that history can be rewritten and an equivalence proved between terrorists and the Army.
Operation Banner ran for three decades from 1969 and was the greatest civil conflict in Europe since 1945—that is, until the break-up of Yugoslavia. While our military casualties were never exceeded in the 70 years after the Korean War—neither in Iraq nor Afghanistan—those sacrifices are largely forgotten. The names of the 700 dead soldiers, many of them young teenagers from “red wall” seats, do not even appear on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission website. It is almost as if Governments of all persuasions are embarrassed to mention them.
The repeated promises, from the Prime Minister down, for Northern Ireland veteran equivalence in some future legacy legislation is very welcome, but it must not be delayed or watered down. They need to get on with it, and I believe that it should be separated out from all the other legacy issues in Northern Ireland. The Army and police stopped a civil war from breaking out completely in Northern Ireland, for which they get few thanks, just vexation prosecutions and unending reinvestigations—due in large part to overinterpretation of, ironically, the “right to life” in Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
They paid a colossal price in blood—some 700 murdered soldiers, including from the Ulster Defence Regiment and some 300 in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. That excludes the very many who died in accidents or suicides, or whose lives were shortened by terrible injuries. The equivalent number of police officers killed on a UK-wide basis would be 10,000. That says it all. Yet it is former RUC officers who are now being arraigned in reinvestigations, reopened inquests or pointless public inquiries, with their reputations trashed and all without the benefit of being able to respond.
I praise the many recently formed veterans groups without whose efforts and organisation this Bill would not have happened. The power of social media has, in this instance, proved invaluable. Their immediate concerns are about new prosecutions. I accept that reopening investigations of old cases will continue if sufficient credible evidence of wrongdoing is provided to justify it, but it must be a high evidential hurdle, as high as the Bill provides in relation to prosecutions, not just for political harassment.
Let us not forget that the only cases now involving veterans are ones pending in Northern Ireland, which concern events of 50 years ago or more. For that reason, we need to get on with a Northern Ireland equivalent law, especially as this Bill usefully carries permission in Clause 1 for prosecutors to consider whether or not any proceedings against a person for a relevant offence should be continued.
In conclusion, much has been made by certain civil liberties groups about Clause 12, which requires the Government, in any significant new overseas conflict, to consider derogating from the European Convention on Human Rights. This is useful, but Clause 12 does not mean more than what it says, and probably no more than what normally happens. The new duty simply requires the Government to consider derogation so the process cannot be discreetly avoided. The convention, as we know, is a living instrument, but enforcement is not necessarily a one-way street—something our representatives in Strasbourg need to bear in mind when responding to pressure from the Irish Government in cases involving so-called Article 2 compliance.
I hope that the Minister will, as she has been asked by many noble Lords today, give us a date for the Bill to repay the debt to all who served in Northern Ireland. They deserve our support and for us to value them just as much as we value those who served overseas.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab) [V]
I start by adding my voice to the tributes that have been paid to our Armed Forces, who put themselves in harm’s way to keep us safe, to uphold our values and protect our society and to do things that are so important, as they are doing now during this pandemic. I also understand completely the concerns of this House that members of the Armed Forces should be protected from unfounded allegations. The idea of a lawyer ambulance-chasing and trawling for clients to launch civil actions against our serving military is repellent; however, the idea that crimes should go unpunished, or that victims of wrong- doing or of injury should not receive justice, is also unworthy —and, of course, that affects our veterans too.
I support all those who have already said it: torture should be excluded from the remit of the Bill, just as rape and sexual violence have been. Veterans should not be protected from investigations into allegations of torture. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, I cannot accept the derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights correctly having a place in the Bill. I shall not rehearse his arguments, but I agree with them entirely.
This legislation breaches international human rights law and international humanitarian law, and I shall just mention the ways in which it does that. The absolute prohibition on torture is sacrosanct; it really is. It is not something where there can be equivalence. The idea that we might be creating a statutory presumption against the prosecution of an international crime such as torture is shocking. Secondly, we have a duty in international law to investigate and prosecute crimes against international law, and this Bill undermines that commitment.
The third thing I want us to look at is that this is creating a de facto amnesty. International law prohibits amnesties for grave breaches of the Geneva conventions: for torture and other serious crimes. Yet the Bill effectively prohibits prosecutions except in exceptional circumstances. That amounts to a de facto amnesty. The other concern we should have is about justice for victims, as I mentioned. The right of victims to justice, to truth and to appropriate compensation is fundamental to the rule of law.
Finally, I will raise the business about vexatious prosecutions. There is something of a coalition of the civil and the criminal here, and I speak as a criminal lawyer. Vexatious litigants are usually linked to civil claims. I know that there are concerns about the Ministry of Defence having to make settlements which amount to a lot of money, but let us just think about the area of crime—we should not conflate the civil and the criminal. Concerns about vexatious prosecutions are totally misplaced. There are very few prosecutions, and I would like the Minister to tell us just how many there have been, for example, in the last 10 or 20 years.
I want to tell the House about a letter that was sent to the Prime Minister. It has been circulated a bit, but it is important for this House to hear it. It was sent just before Second Reading in the other place in September. The letter states:
“Dear Prime Minister, we are writing to you in connection with the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, due to receive its second reading on 23 September. We believe that this Bill has dangerous and harmful implications, for the reputation of the armed forces and for the safety of British troops who risk their lives in overseas operations. This Bill purports to protect soldiers. In reality, it risks making them more vulnerable. The Geneva Conventions form the cornerstone of International Humanitarian Law and exist to protect all parties. Accountability is an essential part of that. Vexatious claims are an important issue, which should be addressed. We find it disturbing, however, that the Government’s approach in Part 1 of this Bill creates a presumption against prosecution of torture and other grave crimes … We believe that the effective application of existing protocols removes the risk of vexatious prosecution. To create de facto impunity for such crimes would be a damaging signal for Britain to send to the world. This Bill would be a stain on the country’s reputation … We urge the Government to reconsider these ill-conceived plans.”
Who wrote that letter? It was written by Field Marshal Lord Guthrie, a former Chief of the Defence Staff. It was signed also by General Sir Nicholas Parker, a former Commander-in-Chief of UK Land Forces. It was signed also by the right honourable Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Queen’s Counsel, a former Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary. It was signed also by the right honourable Dominic Grieve, QC, a former Attorney-General, and it was signed by a colleague with whom I have often worked who has been a really fine judge and was Director of Service Prosecutions, Bruce Houlder, QC. All of them are calling on us to ensure that this Bill is reconsidered or, at the very least, that we amend it to ensure that it has the confidence of the world and that we remain one of the great protectors of the rule of law.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Goldie for introducing this debate today and for following through on an important manifesto commitment. More than 600 British service men and women lost their lives in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is essential that we protect our Armed Forces from the growing number of vexatious legal claims that undermine the ability of our Armed Forces to achieve their objectives in what may be inhospitable and dangerous territory.
Furthermore, our Armed Forces are rightly renowned as the best in the world because they are well trained and well led, but the growing incursion of human rights legislation, and in particular the European Convention on Human Rights, into the area previously reserved for international humanitarian law has undermined the effectiveness of the military chain of command. This reduces the ability of a serviceman to claim that he was acting under orders and places on him an obligation to question whether an order his superior officer has given him is legal.
Paradoxically, and in spite of what opponents of the Bill argue, the incursion of human rights law into the military arena has increased the risks and dangers facing our service men and women on the battlefield. I was particularly struck by the evidence given to the Public Bill Committee in another place by General Sir Nick Parker, in which he repeatedly stressed the need for the Armed Forces to keep accurate records to ensure that any claim can be quickly and efficiently investigated. The Bill seeks to change the rules on prosecutions but does nothing to improve the efficiency and accuracy of investigations, which would deal with the problem of repeated investigations and vexatious claims.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, is quoted in the frontispiece to the 2013 Policy Exchange paper The Fog of War by Tom Tugendhat and Laura Croft as saying:
“It is of paramount importance that the work that the armed forces do in the national interest should not be impeded by having to prepare for or conduct active operations against the enemy under the threat of litigation if things should go wrong.”
The noble and learned Lord did not mention this in his characteristically forensic speech earlier today, but I trust he still holds to his opinion.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, I much look forward to the arrival in your Lordships’ House of Mr Dean Godson of Policy Exchange and to his future contributions.
Hilaire Belloc is quoted as saying in The Pacifist, published in 1938:
“Pale Ebenezer thought it wrong to fight,
But roaring Bill (who killed him) thought it right.”
My right honourable friend Theresa May had recognised in 2016 that we should derogate from the ECHR in future conflicts and said that the Government would put an end to the industry of vexatious claims that had pursued those who served in previous conflicts. Those who think that we should not derogate should acknowledge that the European judiciary looks at the law of armed conflict differently from the way in which our British judges traditionally have done. That is why the armed forces of many European countries are considered to be less reliable partners in conflict situations: their soldiers are not allowed to do anything warlike on the battlefield. As Policy Exchange suggests in its new paper, Clause 12 might usefully be strengthened by requiring the Secretary of State normally to derogate or account to Parliament as to why the Government have decided in any particular case not to derogate.
Both the five-years threshold and the exceptionality test give the impression that the Bill amounts to a statute of limitations, which it is not. Can the Minister explain why the exceptionality rule in Clause 2 is necessary given that other provisions in Part 1 specify the conditions that the prosecutor should consider? Should they not be taken into account at any time before or after five years have elapsed? Does the Minister not share my concern that the Bill may encourage the International Criminal Court wrongly to conclude that the UK is failing to discipline its own forces?
While in general I welcome the Bill and the Government’s resolve to address an undoubted problem, there are many questions which your Lordships will wish to examine in Committee, not least of which is the apparent illogicality of treating sexual offences differently from torture and other war crimes.
Lord Ricketts (CB) [V]
Like many speakers in this debate, I took the original objective of this legislation to be to deal with the issue of vexatious claims. As National Security Adviser, I saw at close quarters the MoD having to devote huge resources of people and money to dealing with the deluge of 3,400 civil claims that it received after the Iraq operation. In the vast majority of them, there turned out to be no case to answer. It was evident to me then that there was a real problem with vexatious civil claims against members of the Armed Forces. That still needs addressing, but, somewhere along the line, this Bill seems to have become much more concerned with criminal prosecution, where, as many noble Lords have said, there is no evidence of vexatious pursuit of military personnel.
It seems that the heart of the problem that the Bill is trying to address is the overlap between the laws of armed conflict as enshrined in the Geneva conventions and human rights law as set out in the European convention. As many noble Lords have said, the Geneva conventions were developed over more than a century, with British jurists playing a very distinguished part, to take account of the fact that war necessarily involves violence and death. They distil the experience of two world wars in a series of principles that recognise the realities of war and aim to protect as far as possible the rights of civilians and other non-belligerents. They are designed to apply in wartime. The ECHR, for all its great merits, was patently not framed to apply to the special circumstances of war. That is why it has Article 15 to provide the right to derogate in such circumstances. The difference of purpose between the two legal frameworks was well captured for me as a lay man by the comments of a British military prosecutor in evidence to the Defence Select Committee in 2014, when he said:
“The need to arrest and detain enemy combatants and insurgents in a conflict zone should not be expected to comply with peace-time standards such as those exercised by a civilian police force in Tunbridge Wells on a Saturday night.”
The issue of overlapping jurisdiction was not a problem during the extended British military operations in Bosnia and Kosovo. It really only came to the fore in Iraq. Why is that? It seems that there is a crucial point here that has not received much attention in our debate: Iraq was not just a peacekeeping operation on the territory of a sovereign power; Britain became an occupying power, with British forces exercising public powers of law and order, including detention, over the civilian population. We have learned in successive military operations that custody and detention present formidable problems for military commanders. They were a cause of controversy again in Afghanistan, although the Operation Northmoor investigation showed no cases to answer by British forces.
As my noble and learned friend Lord Hope and others have underlined, Article 15 of the ECHR sets a very high bar for derogation with its reference to
“an exceptional situation of crisis or emergency that affects the whole population and constitutes a threat to the organised life of the community”.
However, the House of Commons Library briefing prepared for the Bill noted that the High Court, in the Mohammed judgment of 2014, recognised that the extension of the ECHR’s jurisdiction into the area of international military operations, as a result of the Strasbourg judgments, had implications for the interpretation of Article 15. The court found that Article 15 could be construed as referring to a threat to organised life in the country in which British forces were operating, not just in the UK. I realise that I am venturing on to legal territory here, but if I have understood that correctly it seems an important point. In my view, a future British Government would do well to consider derogating from Article 15 if a future overseas operation was likely to involve the UK again exercising occupying powers, although I doubt a Secretary of State would need that to be enshrined in statute to remind him to consider it.
Much more briefly, I also support the strong view of many noble Lords that this Bill needs significant amendment to prevent it having damaging unintended consequences. I hope that the Government will listen to the strength of legal and military opinion expressed in our debate that the Bill should exclude war crimes and other crimes against humanity, including torture, as well as sexual offences from the presumption against prosecution. I hope that the Government will accept that the Bill as drafted could lead members of the UK Armed Forces to face prosecution at the International Criminal Court. That would be the very opposite of the support to our Armed Forces that the Bill is intended to provide, and it would be a disaster for the reputation of this country for upholding international law.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the conduct of parties during armed conflict has traditionally been regulated by international humanitarian law, and the law of conduct of the UK’s Armed Forces has traditionally been, in armed conflict, UK domestic law. Over the past two decades, a number of rulings have expanded the territorial application of the European Convention on Human Rights. There has also been an increase in the number of legal proceedings brought against the Armed Forces and the Ministry of Defence relating to the conduct of military personnel on operations overseas.
The Government have argued that action needs to be taken to provide greater certainty for service personnel and veterans involving what are described as vexatious claims concerning the prosecution of historical events. Part 1 of the Bill establishes new restrictions to bringing proceedings against current and former members of the Armed Forces, including the presumption against prosecution after five years and the requirement to take into consideration the conditions that members of the Armed Forces are in during overseas operations. Part 2 introduces time limits on some civil claims and claims made under the Human Rights Act.
The Bill has been criticised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has argued that it could undermine the UK’s obligations under international humanitarian law, international human rights law and international criminal law. Several amendments to the Bill were tabled during Committee and on Report by Members of the Opposition and other parties and some Conservative MPs. MPs voted on several of them, but they were all defeated.
Our Armed Forces are considered to be very disciplined. They put their lives in front of enemies who breach international law. Our soldiers have taken split-second decisions. Therefore, the Bill should rightly have cross-party support.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her usual helpful and comprehensive introduction. Like my colleagues, I have a number of concerns about the Bill, but today I want to concentrate on the power given to Ministers to derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights, which seems like an encouragement to do so. I raise this as one of the delegates from the United Kingdom Parliament to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which is responsible for the convention. Unlike the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, I believe that universal human rights apply under all these circumstances.
This debate gives the House of Lords yet another opportunity, as we have had with so many Bills, to consider in detail the provisions of this Bill, in a way that the Commons did not. I hope we will amend and improve it before we send it back. There are good intentions behind the Bill—in particular, to protect our Armed Forces from vexatious claims—but in its current form it is not fit for purpose as it does not do what the Government claim, as others have said.
May I also take this opportunity to commend my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench, in both the Commons and the Lords? In dealing with this Bill, they have consulted widely with all the stakeholders, including bodies representing officers and other ranks—the Royal British Legion and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, for example. Their aim has been to build a broad consensus. Many of these organisations have sent representations to us, and I have been particularly impressed and moved by those from the Quakers, Freedom from Torture and Survivors Speak OUT.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, of which, as I said, I am one of the UK delegates, actually elects the judges to the European Court of Human Rights in one of the most impressive democratic processes. Indeed, we will be electing the judges from two countries—Greece and Switzerland—from nominees put forward by their Governments, at the hybrid meeting of the assembly next week. These judges then sit on the court, which considers cases involving breaches of the European Convention of Human Rights referred from any of the 47 member countries of the Council of Europe, including Russia, Turkey and Azerbaijan. It is significant that only Belarus is not a member—and, given its current actions, not qualified to be a member.
If we pass this Bill in its current form, our position in the parliamentary assembly will be undermined, as the Quakers say in their submission to us. The representations from Survivors Speak OUT and Freedom from Torture add:
“The presumption against prosecution is incompatible with obligations under the ECHR.”
So, if the Bill is passed in its current form, British delegates at PACE would find it much more difficult to pursue violations of human rights in other member states, as we have done with the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia in Malta, the arrests of journalists and opposition leaders such as Alexei Navalny in Russia, corruption in Azerbaijan, and many more. This is just one of many concerns about the Bill as drafted. I hope the Minister will give us an assurance that we will be able to remedy it when we get to Committee and Report.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow all who have spoken in this debate, because it has been of rare quality. Like others, I want to begin by expressing my admiration and affection for the Armed Forces and recognising the particular imposition their families are subject to when they find their loved ones are engaged in extended deployment across the world, often in harm’s way.
As the debate has progressed it has become clear that the Bill enjoys considerable sympathy for its intentions, but it has little support for its substance. This is all the more surprising since there was prior consultation in relation to it. This necessarily creates a dilemma: should the Bill be supported and energy invested in amendments, or should it be rejected?
My noble friend Baroness Northover pointed out early in the debate that, in spite of a wealth of amendments in the other place—many of them similar to the observations and criticisms made today—the Government refused to accept any of them. So, what confidence can we have that amendments made in this House on, for example, the matters of torture or war crimes would not simply be rejected again? If we accept that it is our responsibility to do our best to put this Bill into proper order, we are entitled to expect a change of heart from the Government and certainly no repeat of their apparent unwillingness to accept any amendment or notion which deviates in any way from the exact terms of the Bill.
If the Bill remains in its present form, how can we possibly accept provisions which constitute a breach of international law? This is not new territory, as the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, reminded us at the outset of the debate. He recalled, as others have done, the now enacted United Kingdom Internal Market Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, made a powerful case regarding our responsibilities according to those elements of international law relevant to our consideration. Would we really be willing to consider a possible breach of the United Nations Convention against Torture? Would we really, in spite of the observations made about the creation of the Geneva conventions, be willing to consider breaching them? If any individual member of our Armed Forces found himself or herself subject to prosecution by the International Criminal Court, would we really be willing to act in a way that constitutes a breach of the Rome statute of that court?
In a very short report, no doubt under the pressure of time, your Lordships’ Constitution Committee raised a number of issues. I wish to return to one raised by the Minister, who opened the debate in, as has already been pointed out, her characteristically frank and helpful fashion. The committee said:
“The House may wish to seek the reasons for including most war crimes and crimes against humanity in the presumption against prosecution.”
The Minister offered some kind of explanation for that. I say to her, with all due deference, that she will have to find something rather better than what she offered today, because up to now I do not accept—and I believe I am not alone—that the Government have found sufficient justification for the way they have framed the presumption. That, in many respects, is the most damaging feature of this Bill. I hope we will have the opportunity to get the Bill into a condition which achieves the Government’s intentions, even though it cannot now necessarily be read as capable of achieving these intentions at all.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the reason for the Bill is clear and was foreshadowed by the Conservative Party manifesto. For some time, there has been a need to do something about vexatious claims against our Armed Forces and repeated investigations into events, often a long time ago. Noble Lords have already heard reference to Policy Exchange, which has for some time done work in this area, most recently in a paper published today about the Bill by Professor Ekins and John Larkin QC. I should declare a personal interest, having introduced a debate in your Lordships’ House on the juridification of war in 2013—inspired significantly by Tom Tugendhat’s paper, The Fog of Law. I am also a practising barrister acting for public authorities, among others, in relation to claims for negligence and under the Human Rights Act.
No one suggests that military operations should be in any way a law-free zone but the exploits of Phil Shiner and others in manufacturing claims have brought lawyers and, of much more importance, the law into disrepute. Such is the incursion of law into warfare that other countries’ armed forces have perceived us as indulging in what is called legal freeloading, by which is meant not that we are reluctant to do our bit in any military enterprise. Rather, the perception is that our vulnerability to legal claims and investigations is such that it is better for others to do the heavy lifting. I find that really dispiriting, given the extraordinary reputation that our Armed Forces quite rightly have.
Part 1 of the Bill is well intentioned but capable of serious misinterpretation, as we have heard, although with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, it does not create impunity. It creates a presumption in certain circumstances against prosecution. I also do not accept what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said: that a law officer deciding whether to prosecute is making a political decision. That seems directly contrary to the law officers’ oath and I regret that it was said.
I am not overenthusiastic about Part 1. The optics are very far from good but I hope it provides veterans with some reassurance. Of course, the real problem is not prosecution but repeated investigation. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is quite right that timely and accurate investigations are what we need. Of the various suggestions made by Ekins and Larkin, I am quite attracted to the proposal that once a decision has been made not to prosecute, unless cogent new evidence has arisen—and it should be certified by a senior prosecutor—there should be finality, and our veterans should continue their lives without the fear of being disturbed.
Other areas of the Bill which need attention include the question of extraterritorial application of the Human Rights Act, as referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. The Strasbourg jurisprudence was wrong, I think, while Lord Bingham and others were right. I hope that Sir Peter Gross and his panel may reconsider this matter.
The changes to the limitation periods are unnecessary. The law is perfectly capable of dealing with stale claims, but I suspect that this is not some sinister conspiracy by the Ministry of Defence to avoid liability. What lies behind this part of the Bill is the protection of individual servicemen against claims, which would of course be indemnified by the Ministry of Defence. In fact, the provisions circumscribe claims by those servicemen, which I think is an unintended consequence.
The Bill does not say anything about combat immunity, which was a key point in the original Fog of Law paper by Policy Exchange. So are judges, with the assistance of what the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, described as smug lawyers, going to have to decide the difficult question of proportionate response in military operations? That is certainly the view of some, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Smith v Ministry of Defence. We need clarity on this, as was pointed out by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and the Bill does not provide it.
The Bill is clearly aimed in the right direction but, at the moment, I am afraid it does not quite hit the target. It is not at all an easy target to hit but we must do our very best to improve the Bill.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Dubs, I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which carried out legislative scrutiny on the Bill and published its report in October last year. We interviewed many distinguished witnesses with expertise in international law and in combat situations. I am not an expert in law or in military matters, unlike many noble Lords who have contributed tonight. However, I have learned much during the progress of the Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry, from briefings from several organisations and from this excellent debate today.
Our Armed Forces are generally admired for their commitment, high standards and bravery—that has rightly been said many times. There are uncomfortable truths about the Bill, including its incompatibility with the UK’s obligations under multiple international treaties, and its potential for unintended consequences of increasing legal costs while denying injured service personnel, veterans and their bereaved relatives compensation. Some people oppose the Bill on the grounds of human rights violations and the jeopardising of the UK’s role as a global defender of human rights and a leader in the fight for international criminal justice. It would certainly be sad to lose that reputation.
Part of chapter 2 of the Joint Committee on Human Rights report on the Bill is entitled “Inadequacy of Ministry of Defence Investigations”. There are lists of a number of key inquiries, litigation and investigations relating to Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been mentioned already. However, many investigations have been protracted and repeated due to the inadequacy of the MoD’s systems. This has had unfortunate consequences and has not served the best interests of justice.
The Bill has as a stated objective:
“The MoD must, as a priority, establish an independent, skilled and properly funded service for investigations … so that there is no longer any need for repeated or protracted investigations.”
Investigations will still be required, despite this legislation, but that inadequacy will not be addressed by the Bill, and it does nothing to address the issue of repeat investigations. A review has been announced by the Defence Secretary to ensure that
“those complex and serious allegations or wrongdoing against UK forces which occur overseas on operations”,—[Official Report, Commons, 13/10/20; col. 507WS.]
can be addressed. The JCHR looks forward to receiving updates on that review.
It is concerning that the Bill has had repercussions nationally and internationally for the reputation of our Armed Forces. The JCHR report says:
“Some have seen this as a cynical effort to remove accountability. The Judge Advocate General, the most senior judge in the Armed Forces, has said that this Bill is ‘ill-conceived’ and ‘brings the UK armed forces into disrepute’.”
Clause 12, mentioned by many other noble Lords, including the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and my noble friend Lord Foulkes, inserts new Section 14A into the Human Rights Act, which provides that the Secretary of State
“must keep under consideration whether it would be appropriate for the United Kingdom to make a derogation under Article 15(1)”
of the ECHR in relation to
“any overseas operations that the Secretary of State considers are or would be significant.”
Of course, no derogation can be made from certain articles of the ECHR, and the JCHR suggests that the Government may wish to consider restricting this provision to only Article 5, on detention, and Article 8, on the right to respect for private and family life. The report also calls for greater clarity about the parliamentary procedure to be followed in advance of any derogation. The JCHR has called on the Government to
“make an undertaking to consult with the Committee in advance of any proposed derogation under the ECHR. They should provide Parliament with sufficient time to consider any proposed derogation in advance of the UK derogating from its international obligations.”
The committee also expects
“to receive from the Secretary of Defence, a detailed Memorandum explaining how the Article 15 ECHR criteria are met in the case of any proposed or actual derogation.”
With our knowledge of the conditions surrounding the Bill, we should challenge, in the name of justice, any weakening of the laws of human rights. We should amend the Bill according to the suggestions made today, and monitor the consequences.
Lord Truscott (Ind Lab) [V]
My Lords, I recognise that the Bill is highly contentious, as today’s excellent debate has indicated, but I generally welcome it. For a long time now, I have been concerned about the number of vexatious complaints about members of our Armed Forces and the effect that this has had on them and their families. The debt that this country owes to its service personnel and veterans, as noble Lords have said, should never be forgotten.
Of course the Minister should ensure that the Bill adheres to the Geneva conventions and our obligations to the International Criminal Court. Her Majesty’s Government, as a number of noble Lords have said, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, just mentioned, should improve the speed and quality of investigations—something lacking in this Bill—and streamline how they are carried out. Veterans should also retain the right to make civil claims against the MoD well after six years. As many noble Lords have argued, in addition to excluding sexual offences from the presumption against prosecution after five years, Her Majesty’s Government should also exclude crimes of torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. All these despicable crimes should face the full force of the law, however long ago they were committed.
In the other place, the Minister for Defence People and Veterans stated that Part 1 of the Bill did not constitute a statute of limitations and argued that, because the Bill still allowed criminal prosecutions and to take decisions on whether to prosecute even after five years, it was consistent with the UK’s international obligations, and I believe the Minister in this House confirmed that earlier today.
With regard to other alleged offences, I think the five-year hurdle is about right. Ten years, as some have suggested, is simply too long. If prosecutors cannot put together a criminal case in five years, they are not doing their jobs properly. That is not because I do not believe in human rights or the rights of victims; it is simply because I believe that 10 years is too long for those people who are innocent and facing investigation and accusations to endure without resolution. That goes for potential victims too. We should also remember the human rights of our service personnel and their families and the resulting strain, which can lead to marriage break-up, mental health issues and even suicide.
One of the greatest principles of the civilised world is the presumption of innocence—an international human right under Article 11 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, strangely not mentioned by any of the lawyers today. Sadly, a whole legal industry grew up in this country to pursue vexatious cases against our Armed Forces purely for financial gain and to monetise others’ misery. Service personnel and veterans faced totally unfounded allegations, and many found the presumption of innocence replaced with the presumption of guilt and trial by media. Noble Lords will well remember the example of the late Field Marshall Lord Bramall, tried by both the media and the Metropolitan Police without a shred of evidence. Although for different reasons, many veterans have had similar experiences.
Paul Shiner, the solicitor who was struck off, also mentioned several times today, made a fortune from persecuting innocent Armed Forces personnel, veterans and their families. More than £30 million of public money went through Shiner’s hands, and he passed literally thousands of bogus cases to the Iraq Historic Allegations Team, or IHAT. Shiner made millions out of others’ misery, and he was not the only lawyer. Red Snapper Group, with its 127 staff serving IHAT, cost the taxpayer £4.8 million and failed to secure a single successful prosecution. Red Snapper staff turned up at service personnel’s homes, pretended to be police officers and illegally threatened those being investigated with arrest. IHAT was closed down in 2017 after taking up 3,500 allegations of abuse in Iraq, mostly without any credible evidence whatsoever. Some informants, as has also been mentioned today, had been paid or encouraged to give false evidence against British soldiers. MPs called IHAT an unmitigated disaster. It should never be allowed to happen again.
Our Armed Forces personnel should not fear unwarranted prosecution when putting their lives on the line for our country. Of course, one of the problems at the moment is that the law is constructed in such a way that those seeking bogus cases know that, under the law, they can pursue allegations that can result in the potential prosecution of members of the Armed Forces. That is what puts them and their families under strain. Of course the guilty should be prosecuted, but we should try to protect the innocent too—both members of our Armed Forces and potential victims of abuse.
In short, the Bill should be amended but if it helps to protect our Armed Forces and veterans from vexatious, venal and vile allegations then it should be supported.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister and wish her well in handling the Bill as it goes through the Lords.
Having listened to the vast majority of the speeches today, I have to say that it crossed my mind that it might have been a good idea if the business managers had started the Bill in your Lordships’ House, rather than in the other place. In my experience, several major Bills in the past have benefited from starting in the Lords. However, the history is there.
I claim no experience. Indeed, the closest I came was in 1959 when I tried to end my engineering indentured apprenticeship to join the Fleet Air Arm as an artificer apprentice. My apprentice master refused; the rest is history. I pay tribute to all the Armed Forces —the front line and the vital back-up.
I can see how seductive the Bill might appear to some rank-and-file service personnel. My view of how the MoD treats service personnel comes from my 27 years’ service in the other place. It includes direct contact regarding poor-quality service accommodation, a lack of mental health help, post-traumatic stress disorder, veterans on the street, and those affected by nuclear tests in Australia. I never found the MoD, under either party, to be very supportive.
I do not agree with the apparently endless pursuit of members of the Armed Forces, whose lives are being ruined. We fail them if we continue to allow this abuse. Our forces are brave, professional and trained—yes, trained to kill within the rules of war; they are not trained to torture. As many have said, torture is prohibited by law and by the UN convention, the Geneva conventions and other statutes.
I have read all the briefings, but I want simply to rely on the views of two ex-service parliamentary colleagues: Field Marshal Lord Guthrie and Dan Jarvis MP. Dan Jarvis pointed out that the UK has a dark recent past when it comes to torture. As a former major, he powerfully pointed out:
“At a time when we are witnessing an erosion of human rights and leaders turning their backs on international institutions, it is more important than ever before that we uphold our values and standards and not undermine them.”—[Official Report, Commons, 23/9/20; col. 1009.]
In a Commons debate on 3 November last year, he said that torture,
“is never acceptable in any circumstances. … The rules on detention and interrogation are clear. The British Army’s training on detainee handling and tactical questioning is rigorous and leaves no room for doubt.”—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/20; col. 223.]
I do not see how we can claim that we are professional and the best trained if we seek to give people immunity for no other reason than that they are members of the Armed Forces. The Government appear to have gone soft on this. Lord Guthrie said in what is now quite a famous letter to the Sunday Times in June last year that the Bill
“provides room for a de facto decriminalisation of torture.”
He went on to point out that the Bill’s
“proposals appear to have been dreamt up by those who have seen too little of the world to understand why the rules of war matter.”
Those points have been made by many others today. In this respect, the Bill does great harm to the reputation of the Armed Forces and puts them at risk. As such, it must be amended.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
My Lords, I start, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem and the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, by paying my debt of gratitude to the Armed Forces, to our service personnel and to the veterans and their families. One thing that unites everyone who has spoken in this debate is our commitment to our Armed Forces and the sense that it is vital that they have the support they need.
As the Minister pointed out in her opening remarks, the Government had a manifesto commitment to try to deal with vexatious claims. Although the remarks of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford may have suggested that these Benches would like to throw out this Bill at Second Reading—that seemed to be the understanding of the noble Lord, Lord King—that is not the case. We are certainly not proposing suddenly to demand a vote at Second Reading against the Bill.
I am slightly less sceptical than my noble friend on first reading, but the Bill appears on the face of it to be dealing with a problem which many noble Lords have pointed out is particularly difficult. As the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, said, we want to deal with vexatious, venal and vile cases but, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth pointed out, there is a very significant difficulty with this piece of legislation. There is a marked difference between what Her Majesty’s Government say that they wish to do—that the Bill delivers the Conservative manifesto commitment to address vexatious claims, as said on the fact sheet that the Secretary of State’s special adviser sent to speakers in this debate this morning—and what is actually in the Bill.
There are serious concerns about unintended consequences. As my noble friend Lady Northover pointed out, the Bill is very seriously flawed. She suggested that she did not think that she had ever participated on a piece of legislation that was so flawed. It has been pointed out that the legislation passed through the other place unscathed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, put it, and unamended. However, that was not because it was not flawed; it perhaps passed because the Government have an 80-seat majority. Very important amendments were put forward by David Davis and Dan Jarvis, many of which I believe I and my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches and noble Lords across the House will seek to retable in Committee, because there are many problems with this Bill.
Dealing with vexatious claims is important. Nobody wishes members of our Armed Forces to be subject to vexatious claims, nor do repeated investigations serve anybody well. However, there is a very serious question and concern about this Bill, about whether it does anything at all to stop vexatious claims and whether it will stop repeated investigations. The only point that offers some hope that it might deal with vexatious issues is in Clause 3(2)(b), which deals with previous investigations. Beyond that, the Bill does not talk about investigations; it talks about prosecutions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, seemed to suggest that the higher threshold for prosecutions was going to deal with the problem of investigations. I could not understand the logic of that point. Could the Minister explain whether she thinks that the points in the legislation about prosecution will do anything at all to deal with the number of investigations, which is what causes the mental stress for so many of our service men and women and veterans? The issue of dealing with vexatious claims may not be helped by this legislation and, as many noble Lords have pointed out, including the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, there is a concern that the ICC may take an interest in our service men and women if our legislation is changed in accordance with the Bill. Surely that is an unintended consequence that the Government do not wish to come about.
There are various problems with the Bill. One is the basic presumption against prosecution after five years but, in particular, the concern that many noble Lords talked about: the exclusion of torture from Schedule 1. I do not understand why torture, war crimes and genocide are not there, and that seems to be very much the view across the House. The Minister in her introductory remarks seemed to suggest that sexual offences were part of Schedule 1 because they would never be authorised in war or any other context—they are always illegal. Surely torture is always illegal. When do Her Majesty’s Government ever envisage saying, “Go ahead, please torture”? Surely the exception to the presumption should also be included in Schedule 1. An amendment to that effect is necessary. My right honourable friend Alistair Carmichael MP said in the other place that he wanted to focus on the use of torture because it illustrates well the lack of logic in not including torture in Schedule 1. Where there is evidence of torture, no prosecutor sitting in his or her office should say, “Well, there’s evidence of torture but it is presumed that we would not prosecute it.” What sort of signal does that send?
We can see that the Bill’s architecture is such that torture is clearly designed to belong in Schedule 1, along with sexual offences. That makes perfect sense. It is a matter of logic, not law. The provisions in that schedule cover eventualities whose use is never in any circumstances acceptable. Does the Minister agree that torture is never acceptable? Will she consider taking back to her colleagues in the Ministry of Defence a suggestion that torture needs to be added to Schedule 1? If the Government do not bring forward an amendment, she can rest assured that these Benches and noble Lords across the House will bring forward amendments.
Clause 12 on the derogation from the European Court of Human Rights is also a clause too far. It is an area where the Liberal Democrats will certainly bring forward an amendment.
The Bill might have good intentions but, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, suggested, the optics of Part 1 are not good. Indeed, the optics of most of the Bill are not good. We need to think what signals we are sending, both to our allies across the world and to countries that we might think of as our opponents or enemies. As my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford asked, how would we feel if other countries adopted the same provisions that the Government are putting forward here, and we were told that cases could not be brought in allegations of torture of our own service men and women or, indeed, anybody else, precisely because there was a presumption against prosecution?
The measures that we are putting forward will have global resonance. Is that the sort of leadership that global Britain wants? Should we not seek to lead by example? On the day in which Joe Biden was inaugurated as President of the United States and said that the US should seek to
“lead not merely by the example of our power, but by the power of our example”,
should the United Kingdom not seek to draw on our long legacy of leading calls for the prohibition of torture and say that we will always stand up against torture and include that in Schedule 1?
The Bill is deeply flawed. For it to pass your Lordships’ House and be appropriate as a piece of legislation for the United Kingdom, it needs significant amendment. At present, it is not acceptable. As the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, said, I hope that together we can bring forward legislation that is worthy of support. I hope that the Minister might provide some amendments in Committee in order that we can indeed take the Bill forward.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank everyone who has contributed to today’s debate. I am struck by the overwhelming support for the Armed Forces on all sides, the desire to stop troops being plagued by vexatious claims, the passion to respect our international obligations, and the need to get this legislation right. I join colleagues in paying tribute to all the men and women who keep our country safe, especially those currently helping with the Covid-19 response. They make us proud to be British.
Labour and the Armed Forces ultimately want the same thing: to protect troops who might be sent overseas. We recognise that there has been a long-running problem of baseless claims arising from Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to overhaul investigations, and set up safeguards that are consistent with our international obligations and that ensure troops have the right to compensation. But the Bill, as it stands, is not the solution.
During today’s debate, I have been struck by the broad coalition of concerns around the Bill—a coalition that spans from the Royal British Legion to Human Rights Watch. On the main oversight—the failure to tackle endless investigations—the former Judge Advocate-General, Jeff Blackett, has said:
“The presumption against prosecution does not stop the investigation”.—[Official Report, Commons, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill Committee, 8/10/20; col. 127.]
The former Commander Land Forces, General Sir Nick Parker, has said:
“The emphasis appears to be on prosecution. In reality, it should be on what is happening in the investigative process”.—[Official Report, Commons, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill Committee, 8/10/20; col. 96.]
Why was the Bill drafted to be entirely silent on investigations?
On presumptions against prosecution, Human Rights Watch has said that
“this Bill, unamended, would probably significantly increase the risk of UK service personnel … facing investigations from the International Criminal Court”.—[Official Report, Commons, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill Committee, 6/10/20; col. 65.]
Does the Minister want to see British troops being dragged to the ICC?
On the failure to exclude other crimes against humanity, Conservative MP David Davis said that the Government were
“right to exclude sexual offences, and the Government should exclude torture on exactly the same grounds.”—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/20; col. 227.]
Why are torture and genocide not already included in exclusions?
Concerning civil claims against the MoD, the director-general of the Royal British Legion has said that
“the six-year longstop could be a breach of the armed forces covenant”.—[Official Report, Commons, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill Committee, 8/10/20; col. 83.]
The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers has even said that the longstop means that service personnel will have fewer rights than prisoners. Why do the Government continue to ignore the impartial advice of the Royal British Legion that the Bill risks breaching the Armed Forces covenant? These concerns come from former service personnel, organisations representing our troops, and human rights and legal experts. Their concern—as is Labour’s concern—is for Armed Forces personnel. The Government need to listen.
Ministers also need to recognise that important parts of this Bill are missing. My noble friend Lord Touhig outlined how the Bill does nothing to tackle repeat investigations. But, as well as this, when legal steps are taken, we need to make sure that troops have the support they need. We will be supporting a new MoD duty of care in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support for personnel involved in investigations or litigations. Legal aid, too, is an essential part, and there needs to be a review of access for service personnel.
We also need to improve the transparency of derogation and decisions taken by the Attorney-General. We will therefore be arguing that derogations from the ECHR should be approved by Parliament and that the Attorney-General should also lay out to Parliament why they granted or refused consent to prosecute. These steps will enhance the accountability of such important decisions.
Britain’s Armed Forces are renowned worldwide for their dedication, professionalism and skill. We owe it to them to get the Bill right, but we cannot do that if the hard-line, and somewhat naive, position the Government took in the other place continues. No Government will get legislation right when it is first presented to Parliament. As legislators we seek improvements; that is our job. I say with admiration for the Defence Minister in our House that I hope she will change tack and engage with all colleagues positively on the Bill. Those of us on this side of the House strongly wish to do so, and to build a constructive consensus for our troops, our international commitments and our reputation, to solve the problem for good.
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
My Lords, it has been a privilege to participate in and listen to this debate. I want to express my appreciation for the thoughtful and profound contributions that have been made, as well as for the tributes and gratitude extended from all parts of the Chamber to our Armed Forces, recognising the vital job that they do. They are at the heart of what we are discussing; we must not forget that.
Predictably, a wide variety of views has been expressed about the Bill. On the part of some, there is disagreement with there being a Bill at all; that seemed the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. While I respect their views, I cannot support them. For me to bridge that gap would obviously be challenging.
I detected a slightly different nuance from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, but I detected on the part of many other noble Lords a recognition that there is an issue that should be addressed—even if there is a multiplicity of views on how that should be done. The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, accepted that premise, as did the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and my noble friend Lord Lancaster. Indeed, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth accepted that principle, although he had significant reservations about other aspects.
The noble Lord, Lord West, was explicit about the need for legislation, although I noted his mark of five out of 10 for the Bill. In this broad context of the questions of whether there is an issue and whether we need legislation, two of the most balanced contributions came from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot.
Your Lordships have assisted in amending some of the misconceptions about what the Bill does, but I detected a continuing theme of reference to perceived wrongs created by the Bill when, I suggest, some of the more extravagant descriptions are not supported by a clinical dissection of it. My noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater identified that and spoke helpfully about it. I say gently to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, for whom I have great respect, that the Bill is not a statute of amnesty. Having said all that, there are sharp divergences of view about the provisions, their legal interpretation and how that relates to international law. This has been an informed and thought-provoking debate. I cannot deal with every contribution in the time available, but let me try to address the principal issues raised.
To start, the issue of investigations was raised by a number of your Lordships, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Liddell, Lady Buscombe and Lady Jones, the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Browne of Ladyton, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce. It is correct that the measures in Part 1 of the Bill do not have a direct impact on repeated investigations. Credible allegations will continue to be investigated. However, over time, prosecutors may be able to advise the police earlier in the process on whether the new statutory requirements in Part 1 would be met in a particular case and whether investigations are likely to be worth continuing. The Government are committed to ensuring that we have the best possible processes for timely and effective investigations into allegations arising from military operations overseas. As I mentioned, the Bill will work in parallel with the recently announced review, led by Judge Henriques, which will focus on the processes of overseas operations investigations and prosecutions.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, that the review by Sir Richard Henriques will not revisit past investigations or prosecution decisions. Instead, the focus will be on the future, allowing the consideration of options for strengthening internal processes and skills while ensuring that our Armed Forces continue to uphold the highest standards of conduct when serving on complex and demanding operations around the world.
The presumption will not prevent investigations. These are necessary to provide prosecutors with the information upon which to make their decisions. Allegations of serious offences, including breaches of the Geneva conventions, must, and will, continue to be investigated and, where appropriate, prosecuted.
There were some comments about the quality of investigations. In the early part of operations in Iraq, there were certainly very limited numbers of service police and investigators were competing for scarce resources, such as helicopters to visit scenes and troops to provide force protection. These investigations were taking place in the most complex and hostile of environments. In these circumstances, some investigations took place that were later reviewed and identified as having shortcomings. Where appropriate, these matters were subsequently reinvestigated, but much was learned from these experiences. All branches of our Armed Forces, including the service police have taken the lessons identified and have been seeking to improve how they operate.
A number of noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, raised concerns that the prosecution provisions in Part 1 of the Bill amounted to impunity from prosecution. I reassure them that the five-year timeframe for the measures in Part 1 is not a time limit, after which service personnel cannot be prosecuted. The presumption against prosecution is not an amnesty or a statute of limitations and does not amount to an unwillingness to investigate or prosecute alleged offences. It leaves open the possibility of prosecution of all cases, subject to the prosecutor’s decision. Service personnel who break the law can still be held to account and the presumption does avoid interfering with prosecutorial independence. It will still allow for prosecutions to proceed where appropriate. It definitely will not allow personnel to act with impunity. As I indicated earlier, the Bill does not prevent investigations or prosecutions taking place.
The issue of international law compliance was, understandably, a source of both interest and concern for many of your Lordships. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford, Lord Robertson, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Jones, also asked questions about whether the Bill increases the risk that our service personnel would be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court. We are confident that the Bill does not increase the risk of our service personnel or veterans being prosecuted by that court or in any other jurisdiction. While Article 17 of the Rome statute makes provision for the International Criminal Court to step in and investigate or prosecute if it assesses that a state is unwilling or unable to do so, the presumption is not an amnesty or a statute of limitations for service personnel. It therefore does not amount to an unwillingness or inability to investigate or prosecute, and the presumption is consistent with the Rome statute. UK Armed Forces will continue to operate under international law, including, of course, the Geneva conventions, and we will expect others to do likewise. The Bill cannot be used as an excuse for offences committed by others against UK Armed Forces personnel.
A number of your Lordships, including the noble Lords, Lord Touhig and Lord Carlile of Berriew, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Smith, raised the question of whether the presumption against prosecution breaches the Geneva conventions, the Rome statute, the ECHR and other international agreements, including the United Nations Convention against Torture. I can reassure them that the Bill does not diminish the Government’s commitment to upholding and strengthening the rule of law. Military operations will continue to be governed by international humanitarian law, including the Geneva conventions, taking into account the UK’s obligations under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
The UK Government unreservedly condemn the use of torture and remain committed to their obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law, including the United Nations Convention against Torture. The UK does not participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture for any purpose. We believe that preventing torture and tackling impunity for those who do torture are essential components of safeguarding our security and are integral to a fair legal system and the rule of law.
I now turn to Schedule 1 and the inclusions in it. This proved to be an area of considerable concern for many of your Lordships. Indeed, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and other Members of your Lordships’ House raised a number of important concerns on the subject of torture, and it is important that I try to deal with them. The exclusion of sexual offences from the application of the Part 1 measures does not mean that we will not continue to take other offences, such as war crimes and torture, extremely seriously, because they are extremely serious crimes. Indeed, in my opening speech I described them as appalling.
We have not excluded torture offences because this goes right to the heart of the environment of overseas operations: what we call on our personnel to do when they are required to serve in that arena. In the course of their duties on overseas operations, we expect our service personnel to undertake activities which are intrinsically violent in nature. These activities can expose service personnel to the possibility that their actions may result in allegations of torture. By contrast, although allegations of sexual offences can still arise, the activities we expect our service personnel to undertake on operations overseas cannot possibly include those of a sexual nature. It is for this reason that we do not believe it appropriate to afford personnel the additional protection of the presumption in relation to the allegations of sexual offences.
In relation to other offences, the presumption against prosecution still allows the prosecutor to continue to take decisions to prosecute, and the severity of the crime and the circumstances in which it was allegedly committed will always be factors in the prosecutor’s consideration.
Many of your Lordships also alluded to the matter of the Attorney-General’s consent. This was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and by other Members of your Lordships’ House. They were concerned that this somehow undermines the independence of the prosecuting authorities, but I suggest that this is absolutely not the case. In deciding whether to grant consent to prosecutions, the Attorney-General will act quasi-judicially and independently of government, applying the well-established prosecution principles of evidential sufficiency and the public interest. This means that the Government will play no role in the decision on consent. The Attorney-General acts as guardian of the public interest in other issues; there are already a number of offences and circumstances for which the Attorney-General’s consent for prosecution is needed, including for war crimes and the prosecution of veterans through the service justice system if they have left service more than six months previously.
My noble and learned friend Lord Garnier also asked why the Lord Advocate for Scotland had not been included. The consent mechanism does not extend to Scotland because there is no requirement for it to do so; all criminal prosecution decisions in Scotland are already taken by or on behalf of the Lord Advocate in the public interest.
I will move on the Part 2 and the civil litigation restrictions. Again, this was a source of fertile debate, with a multiplicity of views being offered. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, raised the point that not all claims are unmeritorious. I agree: many, though not all, of these claims had merit, but the scale of them and the fact that they were brought years after the events has prompted us to look again at the legal framework to ensure that it is applied consistently and promptly to deliver justice for all concerned.
The noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, asked whether the measures in Part 2 that place an absolute time limit on civil claims breach the Armed Forces covenant. This was also of concern to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. The Bill does not breach the Armed Forces covenant: the new factors and limitation longstops apply only to claims in connection with overseas operations, and they will apply to all claimants in the same way.
A number of points were raised by various noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, about the Bill removing the discretion of the court to extend the time for compensation beyond six years. The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, argued that, for the past 15 years, only one in 25 cases was brought by alleged victims against our troops. I do not recognise the figures he referred to, but I would be pleased to hear from him if he can provide me with further information.
It is important to note that the Bill will apply to only a subset of claims made by UK Armed Forces personnel. The vast majority of claims brought by them are not brought in relation to overseas operations and would therefore not be impacted. Among claims brought against the MoD resulting from overseas operations in Iraq, claims from local nationals far exceed those from service personnel. There were over 1,000 claims from local nationals, compared with 552 from service personnel, arising from our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. An analysis of the available figures indicates that around 94% of these claims brought by current and former service personnel relating to incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan were brought within six years.
As such, the longstops are not designed to prevent meritorious claims being made against the UK Government, whether by our personnel or anyone else. They are included as part of a number of measures to provide a better, clearer framework for dealing with claims arising from historical operations overseas. Indeed, this may arguably encourage claimants to bring claims within a reasonable period, which will certainly benefit them, as memories will be fresher and evidence less likely to have gone stale. It will also help to provide our personnel with greater clarity that they will not be called upon to give evidence about historical events.
Many have suggested that the measures in Part 2 will benefit only the MoD. This is not the case, because the six-year longstops will help to reduce the uncertainty faced by service personnel, who may be called on to give evidence in civil proceedings about often traumatic experiences many years after the events took place. Again, I think the measure would be beneficial to claimants because there is a better likelihood of success if the claims are made as soon as possible after the event or date of knowledge.
The Bill does not change how the time limit is calculated for death and personal injuries claims. That time limit will still be calculated from the date either of the incident or, importantly, of knowledge.
Derogation powers were the other matter that attracted considerable debate. The noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, with many others, asked whether derogating from the ECHR would weaken the UK’s reputation and put soldiers at greater risk on the battlefield. We disagree that considering derogation for significant future operations would put our soldiers at risk. The derogation measure does not undermine the UK’s commitment to human rights and liberties, domestically and internationally; we fully intend to maintain our leading role in the promotion and protection of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The UK remains committed to the ECHR.
My noble and learned friend Lord Garnier asked how “significant” is defined. The duty to consider derogation arises only in relation to overseas operations that the Secretary of State considers meet a minimum threshold. The operation must be significant; whether it is will depend on its nature. This is intended to avoid imposing a duty in relation to any operations that manifestly would not meet the criteria for derogation set out in Article 15 of the convention.
I am conscious of the time. I have been unable to cover a number of specific technical points, but I will undertake to look at Hansard and write to your Lordships with responses to any substantive issues that I have not managed to address.
In conclusion, I want to deal with the important issue of Northern Ireland. A number of your Lordships —the noble Lords, Lord McCrea and Lord Dodds, my noble friend Lord Caine, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and others—asked for an update on the Northern Ireland legacy Bill. As elegantly put by my noble friend Lord Caine, veterans who served in Northern Ireland are not covered by the Bill, which focuses on improving the legal framework for overseas military operations. The Government have been clear that they will bring forward separate legislation to address the legacy of the Troubles that focuses on reconciliation, delivers for victims and ends the cycle of investigations. We are committed to making progress on this as quickly as possible. The Government remain committed to making progress on legacy issues and engaging as quickly as possible with the Irish Government, the Northern Ireland parties and civic society, including victims’ groups, on the way forward.
This has been an excellent debate. I have tried to address the main areas of concern, because many technical, legal issues have arisen out of the debate. As I said earlier, I am aware that I have been unequal in covering them, but as I indicated I will look at Hansard and address by letter any points of significance that I have omitted to deal with.
It remains for me to thank all noble Lords who have contributed. The debate has certainly teased out a lot of issues and provided matters that require reflection. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, who said he hoped I was minded to engage. I wish to reassure him: I am very happy to engage with your Lordships, and I give that undertaking. In conclusion, I thank noble Lords very much for their participation. I look forward to reading Hansard and to engaging with your Lordships further.
National Security and Investment Bill
Wednesday 20th January 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate National Security and Investment Bill 2019-21 View all National Security and Investment Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 20 January 2021 - (large version) - (20 Jan 2021)
Trade Bill
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Bill
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text