House of Commons
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
Good morning, Mr Speaker. We have worked closely with the rail industry throughout the pandemic to mitigate covid-19 risks to workers. Since the covid outbreak, operators have been cleaning trains in line with existing guidance, increasing cleaning regimes and concentrating on high-touch areas that present a higher risk of contamination.
Tonia Antoniazzi [V]
The Minister will be aware that the rail industry coronavirus forum’s figures show that total covid deaths among rail workers have tragically more than doubled since November, from 12 to 26, and that absences have also doubled. The figures could be even higher when subcontractors are included. The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers is concerned that, despite the new variant, some rail companies are acting like it is business as usual. Can the Minister tell the rail companies to do more to protect our rail workers who are so bravely keeping our country moving?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the hon. Lady for her excellent question. I have been talking to the rail companies and, indeed, the general secretaries of the unions throughout this crisis and we have issued comprehensive guidance to public transport operators, including rail operators. This has been reinforced by officials throughout the pandemic on how to keep staff safe and trains clean, so that passengers and staff are able to maintain good hygiene.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
The Department expects the industry to meet current accessibility requirements whenever it installs, renews or replaces station infrastructure. This includes appropriate tactile paving.
Sarah Olney [V]
Does the Minister acknowledge that travellers will need extra encouragement to get out of their cars and back on to public transport once the coronavirus restrictions have been lifted? Will he prioritise making railway stations safe and accessible as a means of attracting travellers back?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I am fully aware, as is every single person in the industry, that we will need to entice and encourage passengers back when they are allowed to travel on our trains. And yes, the hon. Lady is absolutely right: our stations need to be more friendly, more welcoming, more accessible and spotless—and they will be. To accelerate the programme of tactile paving, we have included it as part of our core scope for accessible routes installed under the Access for All programme, so I hope that she will see some changes when she returns to public transport.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
The project is paused and no work is being done on it. We are considering how other transport interventions can best support growth and jobs in the Oxford to Cambridge arc.
Layla Moran [V]
Residents in Oxfordshire, who are strongly opposed to the Oxford to Cambridge expressway, are worried that while the expressway is officially paused, it seems that parts of the road project are going ahead, but in smaller chunks. One expressed it as “expressway by stealth”. Can the Minister tell us how many subsections of the expressway project are in their planning stages, and does “pause” mean that “go” is still an option?
Rachel Maclean
I can assure the hon. Lady that the Government have announced plans to develop with local partners a long-term spatial framework, and that it is along the lines of the 25-year environment plan to build beautiful and sustainable places in her community and in the whole region. Consultation with local residents and herself is central to achieving this vision.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
The Mayor of London is responsible for Crossrail’s costs and completion through Transport for London, although the Government have offered an additional £825 million in borrowing to meet Crossrail’s funding shortfall.
Felicity Buchan
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Mayor of London has monumentally mismanaged the Crossrail project, which is over budget and several years delayed, and that it is ordinary Londoners who are having to pick up the bill with a 10% increase in the share of council tax for the Mayor?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is of course correct. We have had the failure to deliver Crossrail on time, £5.2 billion; higher pensions at TfL, £828 million; the fare freeze, with £640 million of fares not collected; and fare dodging, £400 million. I know that that is all just millions and billions to us, but it all adds up.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Instead of levelling up the north, where this Government have cut £4 million from Transport for the North, the Minister and his Government clearly intend to level down London’s transport network. This is not the first time we have had to come to the House to ask about the Government’s support for TfL because it did not go far enough in the first place. At a time when public transport ridership has collapsed and we are still a long way off recovering to pre-pandemic ridership levels, we must think about redistribution. That is clearly the right approach. Vehicle excise duty, which raises £500 million from drivers who live in London, is invested almost exclusively in roads outside the city. Keeping it in the capital would enable TfL to continue to be a world-class transport provider and boost our nation’s economy, so will the Transport Secretary commit to looking at this as a way to support TfL?
Grant Shapps
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position, warmly congratulate him and look forward to many exchanges. He asks about TfL. The Government have provided £3.3 billion and counting to TfL to keep it afloat. I just listed some of the moneys that had not been collected in by the Mayor, and I hear that the hon. Gentleman now wants to give the Mayor responsibility for the collection of vehicle excise duty in addition. Londoners will be interested in this. The Mayor is already planning an over £31 band D increase in council tax this year and now he has this new boundary tax, which might be £3.50 or £5.50—we await to hear—for entering London from certain locations. Where does it end?
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
The Government are investing £2 billion in active travel over the next five years, much of which will go to local authorities. This is the biggest ever boost for cycling and walking.
Cherilyn Mackrory [V]
In Cornwall, we have benefited from over £600,000 in the second tranche of the Government’s active travel fund—that is 100% of our initial indicative allocation. This will allow Cornwall Council to take forward a package of walking and cycling projects in the two biggest towns in my constituency, Truro and Falmouth. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s active travel fund is the key to enabling our country to start walking and cycling? Will he confirm that further tranches of this fund will be available to local authorities?
Chris Heaton-Harris
Obviously, we agree that the provision of high-quality infrastructure is vital to getting more people cycling and walking, and that local authorities have a key role to play in delivering that. There will be further funding for local authorities to deliver high-quality cycling and walking schemes in the next financial year, and beyond, as part of the £2 billion announced by the Prime Minister in the gear change plan, and I will be announcing further details of this in due course.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
The Government strongly agree that investment in cycling and walking infrastructure delivers benefits to national and local economies, better public health and cheaper travel. That is why, as Members will have heard my colleague just set out, the Prime Minister has announced the biggest ever funding boost to cycling and walking— a total package of £2 billion.
Rachael Maskell [V]
As our high streets struggle and, ironically, York’s Green-Lib Dem council is waving through new car park developments, which will suck even more cars into York, Living Streets’ work on “The Pedestrian Pound” is certainly the antidote, showing that pedestrianisation and investment in the public realm will drive up footfall by up to 35% and retail sales by a similar proportion. Will the Minister work with me to realise York’s potential as a car-free city, so that my community can reap the environmental, social, health and economic benefits of walking, cycling and active travel?
Rachel Maclean
I very much thank the hon. Lady for the way in which she is championing active travel in the city of York, and the Department strongly shares that ambition. For example, she will know of the electric park and ride service that has been delivered, thanks to funding from the Department. We very much look forward to continuing those conversations with her.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
Last year, we took control of the Northern rail franchise to deliver better and more punctual services. We announced £589 million to kick-start the Trans-Pennine route upgrade, and we continue to invest in improving Leeds station. This month, we have launched a consultation to address the Manchester bottleneck, and on Saturday we announced £34 for the initial work on reopening the Northumberland line.
Alec Shelbrooke [V]
I welcome my hon. Friend’s commitment to rail in the north. Will he give me and my constituents an update on step-free access at Garforth station, which I have been campaigning on for many years?
Andrew Stephenson
My right hon. Friend has been a tireless champion for the much-needed improvements at Garforth station, to make it safer for all passengers, especially those with restricted mobility or those with pushchairs. I share his frustration at the length of time it has taken to deliver the improvements that he has secured for his constituents, and we will seek an update on timescales from Network Rail.
Craig Whittaker [V]
It is concerning to see, in the local press at least, incredibly negative and biased reporting that the High Speed 2 eastern leg is to be scrapped. Will my hon. Friend confirm whether those reports are true? If so, how does that fit in with his longer-term ambition to improve rail connections in the north?
Andrew Stephenson
My hon. Friend frequently raises his constituents’ concerns, particularly about the Calder Valley line and the need for improvements in local services. He is completely right to raise the importance of major rail infrastructure projects such as the eastern leg of HS2. We are committed to building HS2 phase 2b and to enabling the east midlands, Yorkshire and the north-east to reap the benefits of high-speed rail services. We aim to publish the integrated rail plan early this year, which will set out our plans covering the eastern leg.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
My Department is at the forefront of delivering plans and detail for the national infrastructure strategy, and we are using Project Speed initiatives and my acceleration unit in the delivery of infrastructure.
Mrs Latham [V]
Duffield railway station in my constituency is expected to become busier during the next few years, as work on improvements to the A38 will make driving from Duffield to Derby very difficult. I am concerned that the platforms are not accessible for mothers with children in pushchairs, the elderly and the disabled, as the steps are steep and narrow and there are no lifts. Will the Secretary of State inform me of what plans there are to improve accessibility at Duffield railway station in the immediate future, because work on the A38 is starting very soon?
Grant Shapps
I am delighted that we are upgrading the A38. I know that my hon. Friend is a regular user of Duffield railway station. She will be pleased to know that there will most likely be further rounds of the Access for All funding, which has done so much to improve access to railway stations throughout the country. I look forward to receiving an application from my hon. Friend.
Dehenna Davison [V]
My right hon. Friend is used to me bending his ear about the Toft Hill bypass, but today I am mixing it up. Last week, I held a call with residents of Whorlton, Wycliffe and the surrounding villages about the full closure of Whorlton bridge. Durham County Council has funding available for the necessary testing of the bridge’s components, but there are concerns about funding availability for the full repairs, so will the Secretary of State meet me and council officers to help to find a funding solution for the repairs of this nationally significant bridge?
Grant Shapps
I came armed to the teeth with information about Toft Hill bypass, so I am disappointed. None the less, my hon. Friend’s concerns about Whorlton bridge sound like they would be well addressed by the £4 billion levelling-up fund that we recently announced. We look forward to hearing from her when that fund becomes available. Of course, I would be happy either to meet my hon. Friend myself or to arrange for my roads Minister to do the same.
Mark Menzies [V]
I am delighted that the progress on my bid for the restoring your railway fund means that feasibility studies at Ansdell station are soon to begin, bringing the doubling of services on the South Fylde line closer than ever before. With more passengers on the line ending their journeys or transferring at Preston, which is already a busy station, what plans are in place to increase platform capacity at Preston station?
Grant Shapps
I know that my hon. Friend has been campaigning tirelessly on this issue. It is fantastic that these Beeching reversals, with the restoring your railway bids, are helping to improve Ansdell. Increasing platform capacity is part of the proposals for Preston, which include extending platforms 3 and 4 and removing platforms 3c and 4c. I know my hon. Friend already knows that, but it is very exciting and I congratulate him on all the work that he has done to bring the issue forward for his community.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
Transport decarbonisation through more active travel, electric vehicles, greener aviation and shipping, is at the heart of our green recovery.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
With our borders open and our schools closed and the Prime Minister introducing new quarantine measures, the recent aviation test and release announcement is now in tatters. We want to decarbonise and we want to give the industry confidence, but the Jet Zero Council, much lauded by the Prime Minister, has met only once and has no workstreams and the Government are dithering over financing the airspace modernisation programme. When will the Secretary of State step up?
Grant Shapps
I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman missed my speech yesterday at Davos where I addressed that subject in detail. In fact, I want to correct the record of the House: the Jet Zero Council has actually met on two occasions and—wait for the punchline—has sub-committees that have met on many occasions, because they are the work horses of the Jet Zero Council and they bring together academia, the sector itself, Government and international partners to deliver zero-carbon flight by 2020. I refer him to my speech of yesterday, which he can get to from my tweet at @grantshapps.[Official Report, 1 February 2021, Vol. 688, c. 5MC.]
Alan Brown [V]
More needs to be done to create jobs in decarbonised transport. I have three asks of the Secretary of State: introduce mandatory e10 fuels; provide funding for sustainable aviation fuel plants; and provide a bus strategy that copies the combined Scottish Government-EU initiative that saw the world’s first hydrogen double-decker buses in Aberdeen. The bus strategy needs to include orders for Scottish and UK manufacturers. Will he confirm dates and funding for these initiatives and in writing as well, please?
Grant Shapps
I certainly share the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for all things hydrogen, and I think I am right in saying that the UK Government fund a hydrogen bus project in Glasgow.[Official Report, 8 February 2021, Vol. 689, c. 2MC.] He will know that we are also funding a hydrogen train project. In fact, I have ridden on the HydroFLEX train. We have also announced the country’s first hydrogen hub, which happens to be in Teesside. Mr Speaker, given the Prime Minister’s 10-point decarbonisation plan from last month, you will not find a more pro-decarbonisation Government than this one. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman on many more measures, including in Scotland.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) [V]
I do not know about you, Mr Speaker, but I cannot wait to read the Secretary of State’s speech to Davos. As he very well knows, Scotland is more ambitious in this area and is world leading in its pursuit of rail electrification, with the editor of Rail magazine saying last week that Scotland has made big progress here, all while the major English electrification projects got cancelled by his Department. Moreover, in our electric vehicle industry alone, domestic charge point funding and e-bike loan schemes have also been deemed world leading. When will the UK Government match their climate emergency rhetoric and decarbonise transport and improve transport sustainability?
Grant Shapps
The audio was not perfect there, but I got the bit where the hon. Gentleman was saying that he is very enthusiastic about zero carbon and getting to the point where the UK Government are the first major economy in the world to legislate for net zero by 2050. I am pleased that he is so enthusiastic. He will no doubt be backing the UK Government’s plan to get to zero carbon cars, starting with the end of the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2030. I know that he will be welcoming the enormous sums of money that will have gone right the way across the United Kingdom, which has enabled—credit where credit is due—the Scottish Government to roll out an impressive number of charging stations for electric vehicles. Let us work together to get this job done. It seems that we are better when we do these things together.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
The 2020 spending review provided a total of £10.1 billion of confirmed funding for the Department for Transport to support passenger rail services in England during the covid outbreak.
Sir David Amess [V]
The service on both the Greater Anglia and c2c lines has been significantly cut during the latest lockdowns. Many constituents have contacted me to tell me that social distancing is near impossible on the few trains that are being run. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that enough money is being given to allow train operators to run a safe service?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend from nearly the city of Southend is absolutely right to mention the importance of keeping the right level of trains running. I mentioned that we funded £10.1 billion—an unprecedented amount—to keep these trains running during the covid crisis to make sure that essential workers can get to work. Of course people should not be travelling to work unless they cannot do that work from home. He will be interested to know that there have been discussions with Build UK and the Construction Leadership Council, particularly on that c2c line and concern about those trains coming into Canning Town. We will keep a close eye on this, and I have asked Sir Peter Hendy, the chair of Network Rail, to also work to ensure that we are alerted as soon as there are any signs of congestion and make sure that these lines can operate safely.
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
Work is under way on the second phase of the new sea wall following the opening of the first phase, which I was happy to open in person in September—one of the few visits that I have been able to make in the last year.
Sir Gary Streeter [V]
This region is still talking about the Minister’s visit to Dawlish. He will know the importance of the rail link from Plymouth to Paddington, and the disruption that we have suffered in the past. The region is very grateful for the work that has been carried out in recent years, but can he assure me today that the next phase of work at Dawlish, to secure the cliff face from crumbling on to the track, will not be delayed or compromised, in order to ensure that essential rail services can continue along this iconic part of the journey?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank my hon. Friend; I am sure that the ticker tape and dried rose petals are still being cleared. I am happy to assure him that we remain committed to improving the resilience of this vital transport artery. Network Rail is continuing to develop proposals for further phases of the resilience programme, using £17.2 million of Government funding that has already been given.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
The Government have made record investments in building and modernising our rail network, and providing capacity for rail users. The spending review included over £58 billion of investment for road and rail transport between 2021 and 2025, delivering some of the Government’s largest capital projects and helping us to build back better post covid-19.
Theresa Villiers [V]
The Government’s programme of rail improvements is the biggest since the Victorian era. Will the Minister confirm that it is going ahead, even if passenger numbers take some time to recover from the covid outbreak? Will he also ensure that it delivers significant improvements to connections between our great northern cities, because that is essential to levelling up economic opportunities in our country?
Andrew Stephenson
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. We are getting on with delivering record amounts of investment in our rail infrastructure, particularly across the north, with the TransPennine route upgrade. We announced £589 million for that investment, joining Manchester, Leeds and other great cities across the north of England. That will be the biggest investment in the conventional rail network. Of course, at the same time we are also making progress with major infrastructure projects such as high-speed rail; last week we concluded the parliamentary passage of the High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill, taking the railway line from the west midlands through to Crewe.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
The Department is increasing rail freight at the port of Liverpool by enhancing the Bootle branch line. This will double capacity from one to two freight paths per hour each way, and will be completed later this year.
Bill Esterson [V]
Moving freight off the roads and on to rail is crucial if we are to cut carbon emissions. The changes that the Minister announced will be a very small contribution because the Government are planning a new road from the port of Liverpool through the Rimrose valley into my constituency, which will have precisely the opposite effect and increase emissions. Earlier, the Secretary of State told us that transport decarbonisation is at the heart of his plans. Do Ministers want to play their part in meeting Government targets or not? If they do, will they think again, look at the report produced by Arup for Sefton Council on alternatives to road from the port of Liverpool, and invest properly in rail freight?
Andrew Stephenson
Doubling capacity on the Bootle branch line is expected to meet forecast demand for the foreseeable future. Recent forecasts, unconstrained by limits on infrastructure capacity, indicate demand for 40 trains per day in each direction by 2043. Two paths per hour in each direction of course provides capacity for 48 freight trains per day. However, the nature of some freight requirements, particularly for shorter movements and smaller loads, means that road transport can sometimes be more economically efficient.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
This is the lowest fare rise in four years. Passengers are advised to reduce journeys as much as possible, and, as such, usage has fallen dramatically during the lockdowns. Passenger behaviours in the future are unbelievably uncertain, but a small fare rise will help to ensure that taxpayers are not unfairly overburdened for keeping vital rail services running.
Kate Osborne [V]
Because millions of commuters are now working from home, the RMT union has produced research on flexible rail ticketing that shows that if the cost of full-time season tickets was pro-rated to two, three or four days a week, these tickets would offer better value for money and encourage passengers back to our railways when it is safe to do so. Will the Minister update us on the Department’s plans with industry on flexible ticketing and when these tickets might be introduced?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the hon. Lady for her very wise question. I welcome the work done by the RMT in this area, and a whole host of others. We are working with industry on what we can do with flexible ticketing going forward. We are wary that sending mixed messages at this time in trying to encourage people to buy tickets for future travel might not be the right thing to do, but I promise her that we are working closely with industry and expect to make announcements when we can.
Kate Osamor [V]
Train commuters using the Greater Anglia service from Edmonton Green to London Liverpool Street are set to pay £1,436 from March 2021—£436 more than in 2010. Labour has long argued that public ownership of the rail network would provide better value for taxpayers and for passengers. Does the Minister agree that the Government must stop bolstering profit for private companies and bring the network in-house?
Chris Heaton-Harris
No. I am absolutely sure that public ownership of the railways, if we nationalised rail, would mean that the increases the hon. Lady outlined would be way more.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
In the midst of a pandemic and facing a deep recession, when people are losing their jobs and seeing wages slashed, this Tory Government are pushing through inflation-busting rail fare increases this March. After a period of record low passenger numbers, we need to encourage people back on to trains to help our economy and our environment, so it makes absolutely no sense to increase ticket prices. Can the Minister explain why his Government continue to pay risk-free guaranteed profits to private train companies? Is it fair that rail passengers across our country will be picking up the tab and paying more—much more—to get to work or see their loved ones?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I always try not to be overtly political in these matters, but under the last Labour Government, in the run-up to 2010, we had rises of 4%, 3.9%, 4.3%, 4.8%, and 6%. We have temporarily frozen fares in January and February so that people can look at what their travel plans might be as lockdown plans are announced. We have introduced all sorts of railcards and a whole host of discounts, and regulated fares will be increasing at the lowest actual rate in four years. But yes, the hon. Gentleman is quite right: we do need eventually to encourage people back on to our railways. If we are going to decarbonise, and if we are going to level up, we want to take people off the roads and entice them back to the railways, and we will have products to do that—but now, I am afraid, we also need to remember that the taxpayer stood by the railways with £10.1 billion in the course of this time, and they do need some money back.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
We are working to support all those in Kent with traffic management, including the Kent Resilience Forum and the local authorities. I also pay tribute to the military and to NHS Test and Trace for the way that they helped to get things going again after the Christmas lorry crisis.
Mrs Elphicke [V]
Having worked so positively with my right hon. Friend and with the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), over so many months on the Keep Dover Clear strategy, it was extremely disappointing that Dover came to halt and a standstill and faced gridlock following France’s unreasonable closure of the border. Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm the Government’s commitment to keep Dover clear so that whatever happens at the port of Dover or is done by the French, people can get around to work, to school and in their daily lives?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I pay tribute to her for the way that she has campaigned to keep Dover clear. She is right also in saying that before Christmas, President Macron decided to close the French border with no notice, meaning that we ended up with thousands of lorries gridlocking Kent. We had to put in place emergency measures, which have included at this stage having provided lateral flow tests to 120,000 hauliers in order for them to cross. I can report to the House that once they have crossed to the other side, the French have also been carrying out some tests. No one has come across with coronavirus as a result of the enormous programme we have put in place, none of which would have been possible without my hon. Friend’s tremendous assistance during those few days before Christmas while the military, NHS Test and Trace, the police and, not least, the local MP worked to clear the problem.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
We are developing a national bus strategy for England. Cumbria is participating in phase 2 of the rural mobility fund.
Dr Hudson [V]
Bus services offer a vital lifeline for people in rural communities such as Penrith and The Border, and the importance of this connectivity has been brought into sharp relief in the pandemic. In 2014, Cumbria County Council opted to stop using central Government funds to subsidise commercial bus services, meaning some routes were not viable for operators, leading to a reduction in provision. Does my hon. Friend agree that now is the time for the council to revisit that decision and use available funds to support rural bus routes to allow people to go about their lives, reconnect and improve their health and welfare?
Robert Courts
We recognise the importance of public transport for the sustainability and the independence of communities, particularly in rural areas like Cumbria, which is why we are providing a £20 million rural mobility fund to support demand-responsive services in rural and suburban areas. I am pleased to say that thanks to my hon. Friend’s support, Cumbria County Council was successful in phase 1 and has been invited to participate in phase 2.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
My Department engages regularly with the Department of Health and Social Care, SAGE and the Joint Biosecurity Centre to ensure we have up-to-date information on the risk of transmission in the aviation sector. We have published safer transport guidance to operators on reducing the risks, and we engage regularly with the sector on the steps they are taking, including the level of absences they are seeing.
Stephen Doughty [V]
This week, we passed the grim milestone of 100,000 people having lost their lives tragically to this terrible disease. Last year I was strongly critical of the Government’s policies on the border, including through our airports. Figures released by Government Ministers showed that more than 2,000 UK Visas and Immigration and Border Force officials were off with symptoms of coronavirus in January to April last year, and that is before we even look at others working in, for example, our airports and on planes. Can the Minister explain what exactly he is doing to keep airport workers safe, particularly those at Heathrow and other major hubs and especially those who will be involved in transporting individuals to quarantine hotels?
Robert Courts
The hon. Gentleman is right to pinpoint the critical importance of those who work in the aviation sector for the country, and I join him in mourning the loss of every single life tragically lost during the course of this pandemic. We are working very closely with operators and the Home Office to operationalise the safer transport guidance that I referred to earlier, in addition to the rapid testing pilots, which may also assist.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
An updated strategic outline business case for improvements to the North Cotswold line is due to be resubmitted by the North Cotswold Line Taskforce.
Harriett Baldwin
I think people will be astonished to learn that the great cities of Worcester and Hereford are served by a rail line from London that in many places is single-track. The North Cotswold Line Taskforce has done some fantastic work in proposing that we redouble some of that track. Will the Minister look closely at its suggestions and support the local councils that are contributing to the develop phase of this project?
Andrew Stephenson
The Department and Network Rail will continue to work with the taskforce on its proposals. I recognise that the line has experienced a renaissance over the past decade, and the taskforce is keen to build on that. I know that my hon. Friend’s desire for improvement is shared by many of my colleagues, not least the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts).
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
We have rolled out a large-scale haulier communications campaign, opened 46 information and advice sites around the country and published our haulier handbook in 14 languages—all the languages that hauliers will be speaking when they come to the UK. We are also offering free covid-19 testing for hauliers at many of our information and advice sites.
Michael Fabricant [V]
My hon. Friend may well know about the Road King truck stop, which is along the A5, not far from Burntwood. I was going to ask her a question about what work she is doing, but she has already answered it, so instead I will ask her this: when we are allowed to do so, will she join me for breakfast at the Road King?
Rachel Maclean
How could I possibly turn down such a wonderful invitation? I can tell my hon. Friend that I have already visited an information and advice site in Hopwood. It is a fantastic service, and there are thousands of hauliers visiting these sites up and down the country, including the Road King at Cannock. I would like to join him there, and hopefully he can tell me what the best breakfast is.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) [V]
I am afraid that my question for the Minister might be slightly tougher to answer. As she knows, the new three-stop limit will be devastating for UK hauliers working with touring musicians or on events that involve multiple stops in EU countries. This is such an important sector for the UK, and it has already been hit so hard by covid. Can the Minister at least acknowledge today that the Government’s failure to seek an exemption during the negotiations was a massive own goal? Will the Government get back round the negotiating table and sort this out before the summer, when we all hope that the live music scene will be open once again for business?
Rachel Maclean
We certainly share the hon. Lady’s desire to see the live music scene open once again in this country. The trade and co-operation agreement that the Government have negotiated with the EU is an excellent deal for our hauliers that allows 95% of haulier movements to continue as they did before. All hauliers who carry out work for a commercial purpose in the EU will be subject to the provisions of the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement. It is really important to put on the record that during negotiations with the EU, the Government proposed exemptions for specialist hauliers such as the ones she referred to due to the nature of their businesses, but unfortunately the EU did not agree to those asks. However, because we recognise the important impact that this will have, we continue our discussions.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
A range of support measures have been made available to UK businesses, including the coach industry, such as the coronavirus job retention scheme. Coach operators and manufacturers can also contact their local authority regarding discretionary funding provided by the Government for companies experiencing a severe impact on their businesses.
Grahame Morris
Notwithstanding that answer, I have a simple question: why have Ministers still not committed to providing targeted support for coach companies, most of which are small, family-run, community-based businesses that provide essential support to other sectors but have been unable to access coronavirus support packages?
Robert Courts
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. I know that he led a very well-attended debate in Westminster Hall just before Christmas. This is a very challenging time for the sector; I entirely recognise that. It is a very diverse sector, and it is difficult to have a one-size-fits-all scheme. A variety of support has been provided by the Government, such as the Department for Education’s money to provide additional support for school and college transport, the Department for Transport’s money to support Christmas travel and the Treasury’s funding for the additional restrictions grant.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
The Department is committed to providing improvements for all road users. It is providing over £2.7 billion for the maintenance of England’s local highway network outside London over 2020-21 and 2021-22, and as part of road investment strategy 2, it is providing £4.1 billion for capital renewals on the strategic road network in England over the next five years.
Joy Morrissey [V]
Too many roads in Beaconsfield, Iver and Denham in my constituency are blighted with potholes. As my hon. Friend is well aware, we want to see our potholes mended. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are still on track and committed to investing £500 million every single year in tackling potholes, and will the Minister commit to meet me to discuss further how we can tackle potholes together?
Rachel Maclean
I thank my hon. Friend so much for raising this issue. Every single Member in the Chamber is supportive of this question, because we all know how important this is to our constituents’ daily lives. I can happily confirm to my hon. Friend that that is absolutely the case: Budget 2020 announced £2.5 billion in total for the pothole fund, providing £500 million this year to local highway authorities in England for tackling potholes and £500 million each year for the next four years. I am sure that my noble Friend in the other place who deals with this matter would be delighted to meet her to discuss the matters in Beaconsfield.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
On Saturday, I was delighted to announce £34 million to help to reopen the Northumberland rail line between Newcastle upon Tyne, Blyth and Ashington. Restoring many of the lines closed during the 1960s is an important part of this Government’s mission to level up the north when it comes to transport. I can announce today that, since the creation of the northern powerhouse in 2014, this Conservative Government have spent more than £20 billion on the region’s transport, delivering roads, rail, and cleaner and better transport, including 168 miles of rail electrification.
Jeff Smith [V]
The Committee on Climate Change has reported that aviation accounted for 8% of UK emissions in 2019, before the pandemic stopped flights. I am pleased that the Government have finally indicated that they will bring forward a support package for aviation this autumn, but will this be conditional on action to tackle emissions in the climate crisis?
Grant Shapps
Mr Speaker, do not think that I did not hear that plea for a rail station.
I want to address the hon. Gentleman’s point about aviation. Again, without sounding like a stuck record, I must refer him to my World Economic Forum discussion and announcements on this just yesterday. Of course, we have COP26 coming up at the end of this year, where the whole world will come together to try to tackle some of these aviation emission problems, and the UK is taking an absolute leading role through the Jet Zero Council. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s interest in this subject, and indeed extend an offer to work with him to progress it.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I welcome the decision to have evidence-based enhancements to control covid at our international borders, as opposed to a blanket approach. Would the Secretary of State agree with me that a blanket approach could see essential goods and services failing to come into this country from countries where the covid risk is perhaps less than our own, because those delivering are currently enjoying a 10-day stay in the Holiday Inn? Can I ask him, in particular, to ensure that he publishes the criteria for countries that will go on to the red list or come off it, so that the aviation industry in particular has the chance to plan ahead?
Grant Shapps
I think my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Transport Committee, is absolutely right. This has required a proportionate and science-based approach to where people for quarantine in hotels should come from, and that includes a red list of countries. I can tell my hon. Friend and the House that that list is available on gov.UK—it contains 30 countries. South America, South Africa and Portugal are primarily the areas and countries involved. I think it is very important that we do make this science-based, and this adds to the pre-departure testing and, of course, all the other measures we have put in place. We will hear from the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) shortly, and I know he is going to explain why he called for quarantine to be lessened.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I am very disappointed that the Secretary of State would go so low as to repeat an untruth that was made by the Prime Minister yesterday, and a point of order has been submitted on that matter.
Mr Speaker
Nobody would deliberately say there was an untruth; somebody may not have had the right information, but it certainly would not be a deliberate mistruth.
Jim McMahon
Thank you, Mr Speaker. As we all know, 500 covid cases have been recorded at the DVLA offices in Swansea. There have also been worrying allegations that employees were coerced into turning off their track and trace apps or given warnings for taking time off sick, and those must be fully investigated. The evidence offered by the chief executive of the DVLA to the Transport Committee has, I am afraid, turned a crisis into a political test. Will the Transport Secretary explain why he ignored warnings about that issue, and why he essentially allowed a Government office to become a covid-19 superspreader? Will he confirm whether the chief executive of the DVLA still enjoys his full support?
Grant Shapps
I would like to clear up this confusion, because I do not think that a mis-statement should stand. I will quote from the hon. Gentleman on 3 July:
“Labour, like families and businesses up and down the country, are keen for the Government’s quarantine measures to be lessened,”.
That was the precise quote.
On the DVLA, I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the stories we saw in the newspapers this weekend, and I have investigated fully. Only one-third of the staff are currently working at DVLA. He might ask why any staff are working there, and the simple answer is that there are paper-based forms and submissions that are not being made online, and without them key workers and others would not be getting their licences. There are databases that, for privacy reasons, cannot be connected to from home, and that requires some people to go to the offices. A number of important steps have been taken, including work with Public Health Wales and setting up a new office for people to work in. No requests to turn off test and trace have been made by either DVLA or the Department for Transport. DVLA works under strict civil service guidance on sick pay and leave, and it must not diverge from that. I take the matter extremely seriously, and I will provide further written reassurances to the hon. Gentleman.
Jim McMahon
That opportunity for the Transport Secretary to confirm his support for the chief executive was not taken, which is interesting in itself.
Let me turn to smart motorways. This month, a coroner concluded that the lack of a hard shoulder on the M1 in South Yorkshire contributed to the deaths of two men, making a total of nearly 40 lives lost as a result of smart motorways and the absence of a hard shoulder. Even the former roads Minister, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), who introduced the programme in 2010, admitted that it was a gross public policy failure. Enough is enough. Will the Secretary of State commit, the minute this session finishes, to pick up the phone and issue an instruction to reinstate the hard shoulder on smart motorways? God forbid we will be here again reviewing more deaths if action is not taken.
Grant Shapps
It is tragic that anybody ever dies on our roads, and it is worth recalling that motorways in general are safer than most roads overall. Smart motorways were, and are, an issue that sparked a great deal of interest from me, and as the hon. Gentleman may recall, before he was in post last year I set up a review, a stocktake, which recommended 18 different measures, including spending more than £500 million to put in a whole series of measures to ensure that smart motorways are not just as safe, but safer than conventional motorways. That stocktake is now one year through, and I will soon return to the House to report on its progress. I know there is a lot of interest in that.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) [V]
On the very day that the Prime Minister shamefully sets a terrible example by making a completely unnecessary cross-border campaign trip, which by my reckoning is against the law in Scotland, will the Secretary of State say what steps he is taking to ensure that the impact of border disruptions, which have hammered important Scottish industries such as seafood and fresh food, is reduced, and that hauliers are able to take more return loads than the scarce amount they can take at present?
Grant Shapps
The House will know that, through a process called the Brexit operations committee, there were over 180 meetings, which have ensured that, with regard to the routing that those lorries take—typically down to Kent and through the so-called short straits—we have seen no queues at all thanks to that planning. There have been some issues with paperwork. I know that that has impacted Scottish fish. I know that Scottish fishermen are celebrating the fact that they can catch and keep a quarter more—in five and a half years’ time there will be no requirement to give any of it away, subject to the discussions then—and I know that additional money and assistance is going to both the Scottish Government and Scottish fishermen in order to resolve any outstanding problems with paperwork, which I trust will be concluded as quickly as possible.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) [V]
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
There are always lots of conversations going on between Transport for London, the Mayor and the Department. Transport in London is devolved to the Mayor of London and TfL, and it is because of decisions that the Mayor has made that TfL has found itself saddled with massive debt and unable to deliver infrastructure projects, leaving it in a weak position even before covid raised its ugly head. The Government—the UK taxpayer, therefore—have agreed two extraordinary financing packages for TfL worth over £3 billion to ensure the continuation of public transport services in this great city.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
Chris Heaton-Harris
As I have said at the Dispatch Box a number of times, we have a lot to do in getting all our stations accessible. This is a Victorian network. While 75% of all passenger journeys go through step-free stations, that means there is a huge number of old stations that need major improvements. The trans-Pennine route upgrade is expected to bring major improvements to several stations along that route, and we are committed to making those stations directly impacted by the TRU more accessible.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con) [V]
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank my hon. Friend for his wise question. We are actively working with the train operators he mentions and others to develop a solution that offers better value and convenience for those who will be commuting flexibly in the future, and we will provide further details in due course.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
Chris Heaton-Harris
The hon. Lady has raised the issue of self-employed taxi drivers and the grants they have received during the first three rounds of the self-employment income support scheme previously. We have announced several measures that are available to UK businesses, including the taxi and private hire sector, to support them through this challenging time, including that scheme. Over the first three rounds of the scheme, up to £21,570 has been made available for those eligible, but I will happily speak to her about those who have fallen through the gap that she mentions to see what we can do.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) [V]
Chris Heaton-Harris
We all look forward to staycations in Blackpool and maybe the odd party conference again, with those enjoyable days that some of us of a certain age used to have there. Coach companies have access to support measures such as the job retention scheme and bounce back loans, as well as locally administered funding. When it is safe to do so, the Government will explore opportunities to open up business for coach operators.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) [V]
Grant Shapps
I do agree with the hon. Lady. It is right that only essential work should be taking place at DVLA, and I will check the reports she mentions. It is absolutely critical. I pay tribute to the people ensuring that essential work for key workers, for example checking databases for the police, has been able to continue. I appeal to the public to please use online facilities wherever possible, because that prevents people from needing to go into the office. I should mention that the UK Government have provided 2,000 lateral flow tests. That is now being expanded to every single DVLA worker, something the Welsh Government were not providing, and is helping to protect people now.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Chris Heaton-Harris
The Government are committed to providing an unprecedented £2 billion of dedicated funding for cycling and walking over the rest of this Parliament. There are a whole host of ways in which that can be spent. Conversations are going on across Government about how to support cycling and walking infrastructure in various areas, including potentially on disused railway lines. I have seen the benefits of how they can be used in my own constituency when cycling down the wonderful Brampton Valley Way.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) [V]
Chris Heaton-Harris
Unbelievably, I have actually campaigned politically for my party in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency in the past; I say unbelievably because it is one of the safest Labour seats in the country. I actually think he represents a wonderful part of the world, with wonderful people, and he represents it well. I will sort out the meeting with the appropriate Minister on his behalf.
Mr Speaker
I will now come to the final question, from Greg Smith. I am pretty disappointed—topical questions are meant to be short and punchy. I say to everybody that, in the future, we have to get through them.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Chris Heaton-Harris
My hon. Friend modestly mentions the excellent suggestions that I believe he suggested at the Select Committee on 6 January. HS2 Ltd is meeting some parish councils on 1 March. I know that my great friend the HS2 Minister is looking forward to ongoing discussions about the ideas that my hon. Friend raised in that Select Committee.
Mr Speaker
I now suspend the House for a few minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Business of the House
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
The business for the week commencing 1 February will include:
Monday 1 February—Opposition day (16th allocated day). There will be a debate on a motion relating to cladding and building safety, followed by a debate on a motion relating to border security. Both debates will arise on a motion in the name of the official Opposition.
Tuesday 2 February—Second reading of the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [Lords].
Wednesday 3 February—Motion to approve statutory instruments relating to sanctions, followed by a motion to approve the draft Value Added Tax (Miscellaneous Amendments to Acts of Parliament) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 and the Value Added Tax Act 1994 and Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1544), followed by a motion relating to the Travellers’ Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, followed by a debate on a petition relating to grooming gangs. The subject for this debate was determined by the Petitions Committee.
Thursday 4 February—General debate on the future of the UK space industry, followed by a general debate on the towns fund. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 5 February—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 8 February will include:
Monday 8 February—Second reading of the Armed Forces Bill, followed by a motion to approve the Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2021.
Tuesday 9 February—Motion to approve the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2021, followed by a motion to approve the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2021, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Trade Bill.
Wednesday 10 February—Motions relating to the police grant and local government finance reports.
Thursday 11 February—General debate relating to the publication of the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy, followed by a debate on a motion relating to the UK’s commitment to reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 12 February—The House will not be sitting.
Hon. and right hon. Members may also wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the constituency recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 11 February and return on Monday 22 February.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I thought hon. and right hon. Members would like confirmation of this information. The motion for the recess is on the Order Paper.
Valerie Vaz
The question is, did the Leader of the House know before the Prime Minister announced it? But I thank him for that. He did not really give clarity on the end of the Session—I wonder whether he could do that.
This week, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) raised the issue of Anoosheh Ashoori in an Adjournment debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) wrote an article in The Telegraph, which was a timely reminder that Nazanin has less than 40 days before her sentence comes to an end. Both Nazanin and Anoosheh have been punished for visiting their parents in Iran. Now that President Biden has lifted sanctions in Yemen, Luke Symons must not be forgotten either. I do not think the Minister gave my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East a very helpful response.
The motion to carry over the Environment Bill was agreed. Talk about flip-flopping—on 13 December 2019, the Prime Minister said that he wanted to make Britain the “cleanest, greenest” country “on Earth”, yet the Government did not accept our Opposition amendment enshrining in the Bill the World Health Organisation air pollution guidelines that needed to be done by 2020. As for lifting the ban on bee-killing pesticides, we have just got our bees back—they are important pollinators. Will the Leader of the House look at whether, when the Bill comes back, the Government will accept this, given that President Biden has said that there is an “existential” climate emergency?
Unless we all tackle the climate emergency—-the scientists say that winters are becoming wetter and wetter—we will have more floods. Can we have clarity on what the Prime Minister meant when he said last year that he will “get Bewdley done”? Bewdley did not get done. It got flooded. When Labour was in power, we increased flood defences by 33%, and that was then cut by the Conservative party, but it was never restored back to the 33% higher level. Can we have a statement on this, or better still, can the Leader of the House publish the data from the Environment Agency that said that one in 20 of our flood defences are in disrepair and that more than 3,000 of those, which pose risk to life and property, are “almost useless”?
I know that the Leader of the House has announced the Adjournment of a week. He will remember that the bailiff-enforced evictions ban will expire on 21 February, so will he look at having a debate on the affirmative regulations, as they will run out then?
I know that the Government have a difficulty with having women spokespeople, but International Women’s Day is coming up, so could we have a debate on that in Government time?
People think of the recess as half-term, but many parents, teachers and teaching assistants will not have one. A headteacher wrote to me to say that
“the way we are working is unsustainable and at some point we will have to put our own health and the welfare of our own families first.”
He asked for clarity before the Prime Minister had made his announcement about 8 March. He wanted to know the conditions for schools to reopen after lockdown; how a return to schools would operate and whether it would be phased or by rota or bubbles; and what the role of lateral flow testing would be. He also wanted honesty over whether education staff would be prioritised for the vaccine, and to know the timetable for the consultation following cancelled exams. And he pleaded with me—he said, “I beg of you”—to ask the Government to establish the guidelines before they make an announcement. Could the Leader of the House ensure that the Secretary of State for Education comes to the House to make a statement before we run into difficulties with the Budget announcements?
Why did the Conservative party want to know the ethnic background of 10 million voters? Why has it acted illegally? It says that it is the party of law and order, but on Tuesday the Information Commissioner told a Select Committee that the Conservative party had acted illegally. Could we have a statement to say that all the data that was harvested has been destroyed?
On flip-flopping again, apparently businesses have been told that they need to set up in the EU if they want to get anything done. Ministers actually said that they had to go to Ireland so that they could be part of the single market. Could we have clarity on that position and whether or not it is better for them to be in the EU?
In another flip-flop, it has been announced that there is not going to be a bonfire of employment rights. I think that announcement was made to the media, so could we have a statement in the House?
I did not attribute it to him, but it was Clive Myrie’s moving film on our NHS workers that showed how difficult it is. Although the rates are going down, we have lost 100,000 people. People need to realise that they need to abide by all the rules.
Finally, I want to thank you, Mr Speaker, for commemorating Holocaust Memorial Day yesterday, and thank your staff for setting up the lighting of the candle. There will be an important debate later, but that represented, on the day itself, light over darkness.
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I begin by agreeing so much with the right hon. Lady, and by thanking you, Mr Speaker, for arranging a very sombre and moving ceremony? How right it is that we remember one of the greatest tragedies, if not the greatest tragedy, that the world has ever suffered. The debate later is very important.
The right hon. Lady mentioned the 100,000 deaths. This is, for every family affected, a deep sadness, and we pray for the souls of the departed. We look forward to a brighter future as the vaccine is rolled out and people are protected from this terrible and deadly disease.
I am sorry that the right hon. Lady was not satisfied with the response given to the Adjournment debate in relation to people held illegally, particularly Ms Zaghari-Ratcliffe, whose sentence, as the right hon. Lady said, comes to an end in 14 days. We expect people who are held improperly to be released. We expect states to observe the rule of law, and we hope that she will be released. The right hon. Lady is always right to raise this case, which I take up with the Foreign Office every week on her behalf.
I am glad that the right hon. Lady welcomes the announcement of the forthcoming recess. She asked if I knew about it. Yes, I did know about it, she will be reassured to know, and I think the motion formalising it is in my name, so it is lucky that I knew about it, too.
The Environment Bill is being carried over because, as much as anything, the House of Lords’ legislative programme—the Government’s legislative programme, delivering on our manifesto commitments—is very full. It turns out that when we do things remotely, they sometimes take longer than they did when people were physically present. Some inevitable delays are caused by the covid crisis, but that does not reduce the Government’s commitment to environmental improvement. The Prime Minister has set out the 10-point plan, and COP26 will take place in Glasgow later this year. This Government are a world leader in environmental improvement, and that will carry on being the case.
With regard to flooding, the £5.2 billion of taxpayers’ money announced last year is going ahead and will be implemented to provide more flood defences, protecting hundreds of thousands more homes. That shows the Government’s commitment to protecting people’s homes. The right hon. Lady also asked about repairs. Some £120 million has been set aside for repairs, so again that is taking place.
On the specific request for a debate in Government time on International Women’s Day, the right hon. Lady will remember that last year the Backbench Business Committee had not yet been set up, and therefore the Government provided time for the debate. The Backbench Business Committee knows that, when it was set up, one of the things that it had responsibility for was the International Women’s Day debate, as it has for the debate later today on Holocaust Memorial Day. These very important debates come out of the Backbench Business Committee’s allocation.
I completely understand the right hon. Lady’s frustration in relation to schools, with five children of my own being home schooled—although, I must confess that the burden is falling primarily on my wife, rather than on me. This is something that parents are finding difficult, because it is hard. But to ask for clarity in an uncertain situation is, I think, simply not reasonable. Things are developing all the time, sometimes for the better and sometimes not. We had a new strain that turned out to be more virulent, but now we have progress with the vaccine roll-out, so we have to deal with events as they arise. It is not possible to set out with complete clarity what will happen and be certain that that is what will happen, because of the unknowable nature of the progress of the virus and the responses to it.
With regard to EU businesses, we are much better off being out of the European Union. That is what the country wanted and what we have delivered, and we are seeing the benefits day by day. It is really good news that we are out. The Government have not advised businesses to set up in the European Union—that is a fiction.
Finally, the Government have been great supporters of employment rights in this country, but then the Tories have always been great supporters of employment rights. If I may claim Elizabeth I as the first Tory, as I am tempted to do, an Act of Parliament was passed in her reign—
Mr Speaker
The royal family are not political, and the Leader of the House knows that.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The current members, Mr Speaker; I think I must be allowed to comment on previous members. Otherwise, all my exchanges with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) would be out of order, because Alfred the Great was certainly a member of the royal family. I think I am allowed to refer to Queen Elizabeth I, who introduced an Act to protect people from unfair dismissal. Of course, it was Lord Shaftesbury, that great Tory hero, who was the mainstay of 19th-century improvements in employment rights. The Conservatives have always been committed to that and will continue to be, which is why employment rights in this country are much better than they are in Europe, including on maternity leave and holiday time. It is because this nation and the Conservative party have a great commitment to employment rights.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
Mole Valley, like many other constituencies, is frequently plagued by Travellers illegally invading both public and private land, and by abuse of planning legislation. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Home Office are said to be introducing legislation to help deal with the problem, but I am hearing a disparity of approach. It would therefore be helpful if, prior to its presentation, there was a debate to enable Members to express their wishes on this prospective legislation.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises an important point. For many years, illegal Traveller encampments have brought crime to local areas, as well as antisocial and threatening behaviour. It remains the Government’s intention to bring forward legislation when parliamentary time allows that strengthens police powers to tackle unauthorised encampments. As we set out in our recent “Planning for the future” White Paper, we intend to review and strengthen existing powers and sanctions to ensure that they support the new planning system. We intend to introduce more powers to address intentional unauthorised development, consider higher fines and look at ways of supporting more enforcement activity. We want a fair system for all. The Government’s overarching aim is to ensure fair and equal treatment for Travellers, in a way that facilitates their nomadic way of life while respecting the interests of the settled community. I hope that my hon. Friend will make his views known to Ministers in the normal way, but an Adjournment debate might be an excellent means of getting his views further on the record.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]
First, may I associate myself with the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House and the Leader of the House regarding Holocaust Memorial Day?
I would like to ask for a debate on the role of Government Ministers and the Prime Minister in particular in setting an example by following the rules that they make for others during the lockdown. I know that every time the Prime Minister opens his mouth on the subject, his ill-informed views drive support for Scottish independence upwards, and I know also that his stage-managed visits to selected Scottish supporters make the SNP’s case for it. So in normal circumstances, he would be most welcome, but these are not normal circumstances. We are telling millions of people not to leave their homes and only to make essential journeys. The Prime Minister is more than capable of patronising us from his office in Whitehall, so what exactly is so essential about his 1,000-mile round trip to Livingston today? This galivanting is a blatant piece of electioneering, while most people are focused on fighting covid, but the real tragedy is that his actions will undermine the public health message, which we all need to succeed.
Let me turn to the Government plans to cut universal credit by 20% in April. This would be the most cruel and immoral decision of this Administration, heaping pain and misery on the very poorest in our communities, who have already borne the consequences of covid to a greater extent than most. The decision is extremely unpopular, even in the Tory party, but rather than have a proper debate on the matter, the Government are trying to buy time by delaying it until the Budget at the start of March. That may suit the Government, but to leave this threat hanging over the heads of so many families is unforgivable. The House should debate this measure now, not in March.
In December, the Government laid changes to the immigration rules that fundamentally altered the nature of asylum, leaving many vulnerable people in limbo. Members across the House have supported an SNP motion to oppose those measures. When will we get the chance to debate them? Finally, may I ask again when we will get a third party Opposition day, which is long overdue?
Mr Rees-Mogg
As always, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. We have facilitated a debate, coming up shortly, in response to a prayer from the SNP on a statutory instrument. We are doing our best to facilitate all Opposition parties, but I bear in mind his request for an Opposition day debate, which is important, as set out in Standing Orders.
As regards universal credit, the hon. Gentleman is simply getting the wrong end of the stick or not paying attention. It was debated in the House not long ago in an Opposition day debate, as is the normal way of things being debated in the House. That is why there are Opposition day debates—so that people can discuss things that the Opposition want to talk about. The Government have made it clear that the £20 uplift introduced by this Government to help the least well-off in society during the pandemic is under review, and there will be an announcement in the Budget in the perfectly normal and proper way. It is cheap point scoring that does not score any points to complain about it at this stage, when the decision will be announced in due course.
As regards the Prime Minister’s visit to Scotland, I used to think that Mona Lott was a fictional character, but it turns out that it is actually the First Minister of Scotland. All Mrs Sturgeon can ever do is moan a lot. She moans when distinguished royal personages visit Scotland, and she moans when the Prime Minister visits Scotland—people doing their duty and doing their job. The visit to Livingston is something we should be proud of as a nation. The Prime Minister is visiting a vaccine factory that has made enormous strides to develop and produce a vaccine that is awaiting approval to help in the fight against covid. The Prime Minister is doing his job. Mona Lott will have something to moan about in early February, when Mr Salmond gives evidence to a committee of inquiry in the Scottish Parliament and we find out all that is going on up north to the disadvantage of the Scottish people, led by a hopeless Administration.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) [V]
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the management of trees by local authorities? While most people recognise the importance of tree-planting programmes, I am receiving a number of complaints in Southend about the damage that trees are doing to pavements and, sadly, to people’s property. There needs to be some sort of mechanism to resolve disputes between the local authority and the insurers.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. There are difficulties when roots push up into pavements or tarmac, and there are laws and rules relating to this. The effect of any tree on neighbouring land is for the relevant owners to discuss, and the Government recommend that arboricultural advice is sought from competent contractors and consultants. They or the local authority should be able to inform tree owners of their responsibilities and the options in any particular case. It is important that trees are inspected regularly, with necessary maintenance to ensure that they remain safe and healthy, and that it is safe for buses to pass under them on highways and so on. That responsibility falls primarily on local councils, but my hon. Friend has got his point on the record.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
As always, Mr Speaker, I am very grateful to you for calling me.
I understand that the award of the Backbench Business time on Thursday 11 February may have been regarded as provisional by Government business managers; I hope that that is not the case. The Backbench Business Committee was established so that issues could be aired and debated as requested by Back-Bench Members across the House. Sometimes issues and subject matters may arise on which many Members want to contribute and which may, at the same time, be inconvenient for the Government of the day. But this is one of the reasons that the Committee was established—to allow parliamentarians, away from the Executive and the Front Benchers on both sides, to have a measure of input into the parliamentary agenda and the subjects of debate.
On a lighter note—I do hope that this is appreciated—the Backbench Business Committee has received an application for a debate on International Women’s Day, which is on Monday 8 March. Of course we would love to facilitate it, but the awarding of time to the Committee is up to the Government, and we are well behind the schedule within Standing Orders for the allocation for this Session.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman’s point about the Backbench Business Committee’s choice of debates is absolutely right. The Committee is there to choose debates that Back Benchers want to have. That may be inconvenient to both Front Benches, but that is perfectly reasonable and fair. As regards to the allocation of time, I remind the hon. Gentleman that Government time was found prior to the set-up of the Backbench Business Committee for what were essentially Back-Bench business debates, so we have done rather better than the bald figures indicate.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) [V]
My constituency, Wakefield, close to the heart of God’s own country, is—as you know, Mr Speaker—a wonderful place to visit, work or live in. It generally enjoys a fine climate, blessed to it by the beneficent creator we are familiar with from the Gospels. On occasion, however, we have witnessed tempests more reminiscent of the Old Testament, and at such times Wakefield suffers severe flooding. Since being elected, I have aided my constituents in battling floods—most recently, just last week during Storm Christoph. With this in mind, will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House find Government time for a debate on the state of Wakefield’s flood defences and those of the wider Calder river system?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I did not realise that Wakefield had moved to Somerset and was therefore in God’s own county, but I will accept my hon. Friend’s suggestion; of course, we remember that Christ was taken to Glastonbury by Joseph of Arimathea, and that is why we have such a claim to being a divine county.
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this point, because it is vital that we tackle flooding across the country and guard against it in future. As I said earlier, the Government are spending £5.2 billion on flood and coastal defence schemes over the next six years, and we have spent £2.6 billion between 2015 and 2021 to protect 300,000 homes. We are obviously working with communities and local authorities to make sure that this money is spent wherever the risk is highest, and where it will benefit the most people and property, so my hon. Friend will not have to build an ark and go in two by two.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) [V]
The UK Government’s proposed Turing scheme is at every level a pale imitation of Erasmus, not least the funding of £105 million compared with the educational and fraternal powerhouse of Erasmus and its budget of £26.2 billion over seven years. Turing offers no funding to the international partners that we need to allow mobilities; it offers no support at all for adult education or youth work centres; and support for our colleges and schools will be drastically reduced. Can we have a debate in Government time on the incompetence of this Government’s damaging educational opportunity in Scotland, with specific reference to the provisions made under the 1707 Acts of Union?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is always a delight to debate the virtues of the Acts of Union and what they did to create such a strong United Kingdom, to the benefit of everybody throughout the whole United Kingdom. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the £8.6 billion that the United Kingdom taxpayer has provided to help Scotland.
The Turing scheme will be backed by £100 million and will look at a broader horizon, rather than a narrow European horizon—we will turn our eyes to the whole of the world and it will provide UK students with the opportunity to study all over the world. It will potentially help 35,000 students in universities, colleges and schools to go on study and work placements overseas, starting in September 2021. The continuation of Erasmus would have cost the taxpayer £2 billion and we would have got less out of it than we put in. That would not have been fair on our taxpayers.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) [V]
The eviction ban has been a positive policy overall, but my constituent Andy has experienced the negative side of it. His tenants have used it as an excuse not to pay their rent, even though they have remained in full-time employment and have even abused him for requesting it. They are now in serious arrears and, as it is his main income, he is seriously out of pocket. May we have a debate on supporting our constituents in respect of the unintended consequences of policies designed to support people, not to allow others to take advantage of them?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Government continue, in all our guidance and communications, to urge tenants to pay their rent wherever possible and to speak to their landlord at the earliest opportunity if they have any difficulties in doing so. We have put in place a significant financial package to help tenants to pay their rent, including through support for businesses to pay salaries and the boosting of the welfare safety net. Our package of measures strikes a fair balance. Landlords can now action possession claims through the courts, although currently bailiffs cannot enforce evictions. There are exemptions for the most serious cases, such as antisocial behaviour and arrears equivalent to six months’ rent. It is important to strike a balance between the interests of tenants and of landlords, many of whom, as with my hon. Friend’s constituent, own only one property and are dependent on the income from it.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The Leader of the House will be aware from my previous questions of the concerns of thousands of my residents in Cardiff South and Penarth who are affected by fire and building safety defects, and of the need for UK Government legislative action on the issue. He will know that this concern is shared throughout the House. Will he be clear about when the Lords amendments to the Fire Safety Bill will come back to this House; whether there will be adequate time to discuss the many excellent amendments that have been tabled, including by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition; and when the draft Building Safety Bill will be brought before the House? My residents want to see action and they do not want leaseholders to have to pay the costs of the terrible defects in their buildings.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I will make announcements about business in the normal way. Of course, there is a natural progression of Bills. I should point out that 100% of Grenfell-style cladding either has been removed or is in the process of being removed from social housing, and the proportion is 90% across all housing. The taxpayer has provided £1.6 billion to facilitate that. What the hon. Gentleman asks about is being taken very seriously and steps are being taken, but Bills will receive their passage in the normal way.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
My right hon. Friend will be aware that last week the deeply unpopular Streetspace scheme was found by the High Court to be unlawful because of the failure to consult residents, the failure to take into account the impact on taxi drivers and the failure to take into account the disabled and other protected characteristics. The schemes across London have cost millions of pounds, but the verdict has an effect right across the country, where road closures and cycle lanes are being put into place without proper consultation. Sadly, I was unsuccessful in the shuffle for Transport questions, so may we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Transport to the House on the impact of the verdict on the various schemes throughout the country, and particularly in London?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is very wise in how he uses the House’s mechanisms, because the lines I have here come from the Department for Transport, although I would add my own line that the car-hating Mayor of London wanted to do his best to upset motorists, and neither is he very fond of taxi drivers, who Disraeli called the gondoliers of London and who should always be respected and admired for the work they do.
It would be wrong of me to comment on the specific judgment because it may be under appeal from Transport for London and it is not proper to discuss current legal cases. However, the Government have made it clear to local authorities that they must consider the effect on all road users when developing cycling and walking schemes through the active travel fund. Allocations from tranche 2 of the active travel fund were announced last November. These were subject to LAs demonstrating that they have consulted local communities on proposed schemes. The Government’s additional network management duty guidance on reallocating road space was updated in November alongside the tranche 2 announcements and strengthens the advice on consulting disabled people. It recommends that authorities carry out quality impact assessments and reminds them of their duties under equalities legislation. But I think the real answer to my hon. Friend is: vote Conservative in the local elections and let us have a Tory Mayor.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) [V]
It is a bit disappointing that the Leader of the House, my constituency neighbour, does not take more seriously the need to tackle air pollution, but I want to ask about something else today. Two weeks ago, he suggested that fish
“are now British fish, and they are better and happier fish for it.”—[Official Report, 14 January 2021; Vol. 687, c. 510.]
Obviously he was being a bit silly, which he likes to do from time to time, but if he does really care about the emotional wellbeing of fish, or any other sentient beings, above and beyond nurturing their sense of national identity, perhaps he might find parliamentary time to bring forward the animal sentience Bill that was promised to this House as long ago as 2017. There is no excuse for the delay and no excuse for breaking that promise to the House, so can he just get on with it?
Mr Rees-Mogg
First, I do not know why the hon. Lady thinks I do not mind about air pollution, which is a matter of great seriousness. It has to be remembered that it was the last socialist Government who encouraged people to have the diesel cars that have done so much damage to our air quality. She ought to remember that when phrasing her questions. On the animal sentience Bill, it was in the manifesto and there is every intention of bringing it forward. The Government are going to meet their manifesto commitments.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) [V]
On 15 February last year, Emily Moore from my constituency died while in a local mental health facility. Emily had committed suicide just days after her eighteenth birthday. Her father David has been campaigning hard for better mental health support for young people. In the context of covid, there are widespread concerns about the detrimental impact of the pandemic on mental health. Is it possible to have a debate on this in Government time to see whether we in this House can find solutions to help to ensure that no young person has to follow Emily’s fate?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am incredibly sorry to hear about the death of my hon. Friend’s constituent, Emily. We pray for her soul and for the comfort of her family, and those who are bereaved.
As a society we need to do everything we can to support vulnerable and at-risk people, as well as those in crisis, and give them the help they desperately need. This is particularly true during the pandemic. We recently had Brew Monday with the Samaritans, raised by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), and that is something also to bear in mind. The Government are putting more money into and taking more action on mental health than any previous Government. Mental health funding increased to £13.3 billion in 2019-20.
The Government are clear that the best place for children to be is in school for their learning, development and mental health. That is why we have done all we can to keep schools open through this pandemic. For those children who may be struggling with their mental health, schools have the flexibility to offer a place to vulnerable children, who might include those for whom being in school helps them to manage their mental health. Schools will continue to offer pastoral support to pupils working remotely, supported by £8 million of taxpayers’ money that the Government have provided for wellbeing training and advice, while Public Health England has provided guidance for parents and carers on supporting children’s and young people’s mental health and wellbeing. What Emily’s family are campaigning for is something that I think we all support.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) [V]
Last week, the Education Secretary announced that the teaching grant would be removed from high-cost C1 subjects while increasing support for strategic subjects. This would severely impact institutions like Bath Spa University, which the Leader of the House and I share in our constituencies. From product design to computer software engineering to the creative arts, these subjects are vital to our economy and our wellbeing. Can we have a debate in Government time on the enormous value of creative subjects and their role in rebuilding our economy when recovering after the corona crisis?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady mentions Bath Spa University—its main campus is in North East Somerset, at Newton St Loe—which is a very fine establishment. In all decisions of this kind, there are difficult balances to be made when allocating resources. There are not unlimited resources and there are many things that clamour for taxpayers’ money, so it is really a question of getting that balance right.
Mr Speaker
Thinking of Alfred the Great, let us go to Ian Liddell-Grainger.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) [V]
Mr Speaker, thank you. I was worried to hear that some of our colleagues do not realise that Somerset is God’s county.
My right hon. Friend will remember that the Vikings were very pleased to get other people’s money. They begged it, borrowed it, stole it, buried it. Unfortunately, that is what has been happening in the county council: it has been hoarding the covid grants. It thought it had been given £32 million, as it said publicly. It turns out that the accountants tell it that it has been given £80 million, which is what it should be using for covid. We want to know what has happened to the money, and we want to see the proof.
Unfortunately, this county council wants to become a unitary, which is going to be disastrous for the people of Somerset. We need a full-county solution and we need a debate. King Alfred and I would love such a debate, and I wonder if my right hon. Friend will be so kind as to give it to us both.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend, as always, raises an important point. I am delighted to hear that the council has found more money. It sounds rather like the card in Monopoly that says, “Banking error in your favour”, which very rarely seems to happen in real life, but clearly has happened in Somerset.
I have indeed received communications from the county council about what it calls its “One Somerset” proposal. The problem with this is that it does not include the whole of Somerset—it leaves out both North Somerset, and Bath and North East Somerset—and it is always an irritation when people pretend to represent the whole great county of Somerset when they are only representing a part of it.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) [V]
The North-East Joint Transport Committee’s “Connected North East” blueprint sets out vital asks of Government to upgrade our regional transport and digital connectivity in order to rebuild and revitalise our economy and communities post covid, including long overdue upgrades to the congested east coast main line and long-distance high-speed rail services calling at Newcastle airport. Can we therefore find time for a debate on how the Government will support north-east communities to deliver this ambitious package, developed by our region for our region, so the north-east can forge its prosperous future?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I hope the hon. Lady is pleased that we have managed to find time for a Petitions Committee debate, which I promised I would do when Westminster Hall was temporarily closed.
The Government have a record infrastructure programme, with £600 billion in the next five years to deliver on the promise to upgrade and level up infrastructure. That is for roads and railways, along with gigabit broadband and 5G. On railways, there is £40 billion for rail, including £17.5 billion for renewal and upgrades over the next three years. So there is money available, it is being spent and the hon. Lady is right to petition for it for her part of the country.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) [V]
With covid cases in remote rural North Devon at 60 per 100,000, neighbouring Torridge at 50 per 100,000 and our hospital having just seven cases currently, will my right hon. Friend secure Government time to debate the timing of schools being able to fully reopen? With some of the worst broadband in the country, no visitors travelling into the area and the vaccine roll-out going well—and thanks to residents who have consistently kept cases below the national average—is there an opportunity for some Devon schools to have early confirmation that the good work being done in keeping infection rates down will result in schools opening on 8 March, if not earlier?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Government’s priority every step of the way has been making sure that no young person would be disadvantaged by the situation we are in and returning to face-to-face learning as soon as we possibly can, while giving a fortnight’s notice for schools to reopen. There is support for children who may be falling behind. There is the £650 million catch-up premium, helping schools to support all pupils this academic year—worth £80 per pupil in most schools and £240 per pupil in special schools—in addition to the £350 million national tutoring programme targeted at the most disadvantaged students. The Government will set out plans as soon as we reasonably can, but as I said in response to the right hon. Lady the shadow Leader of the House, the certainty that is asked for cannot necessarily be given with an evolving pandemic.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) [V]
The Government’s kickstart scheme seems to need exactly that. Despite the Chancellor’s trumpeting of the scheme, the experience for many businesses, training providers and those bidding for contracts is of frustration, bureaucracy and receiving no feedback on why bids are rejected. The reality is that the scheme has delivered only 2,000 jobs for young people on the ground. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a Government debate or a statement to inform the House of what the Government intend to do to get the scheme back on track?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The kickstart scheme is really important in helping young people get employment. It is rolling out and is will help young people. Of course, if the hon. Gentleman has any specific concerns, or if there are specific areas where he thinks things could be improved, if he would like to send them to me, I will pass them on to the Secretary of State.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend will know, Derbyshire Dales again experienced flooding last week due to Storm Christoph. The River Wye in Bakewell burst its banks and homes were flooded, causing serious damage and much anguish. This is now a near-annual event. Will my right hon. Friend allow time for a debate on the effective long-term management of the River Wye and the River Derwent, so that my constituents can sleep easy in their beds when it rains?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is not the first Member to raise this issue this morning; it is clearly a matter of concern across the House and the country. I reiterate the figures on the planned expenditure—the £5.2 billion. There is a worry for people where flood defences are imperfect, and it is important that that money is spent effectively, in addition to the money being spent to repair defences. The right hon. Member the shadow Leader of the House raised the state of repair of some flood defences. I know from my own county, when the Somerset levels flooded—not in my constituency, but nearby—the terrible effect this has on families and businesses. It is something that the Government are working hard to deal with. As regards the specifics on the Derwent and the Wye, I suggest that that is a matter for an Adjournment debate.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind) [V]
Diolch, Mr Speaker. I thank the Leader of the House for addressing my issue with proxy voting. I am grateful to him. News broke last night that a DVLA worker has sadly passed away following a positive covid test. From my conversations with constituents, it appears that the Prime Minister was poorly briefed in his answer yesterday. The testing system he refers to has not been applied uniformly across the DVLA estate. In the main building, workers are cramped on each floor in an environment that appears not to be covid-secure. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Transport to come to the House to make a statement, so that Welsh MPs are able to convey the concerns of our constituents, because his answer earlier today will not have alleviated them?
Mr Rees-Mogg
As I understand it, the DVLA has worked hard to make its Swansea headquarters covid-safe and has carried out, I think, 2,000 tests to detect covid within its workforce. Out of that workforce, the number I am aware of who have tested positive for covid over the course of the pandemic is in line with, if not below, the national average. It is important to remember that the DVLA carries out an absolutely essential service that needs to be done within an office environment. Driving licences and vehicle documentation need to be printed securely—it is not work that can easily be done from home. Dare I say that points need to be deducted from people’s licences securely when that unfortunate occurrence may arise. The DVLA needs to have people physically present, but I believe it is working hard to ensure its headquarters is a covid-safe environment.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) [V]
May I add my voice to those Members who have highlighted the importance of marking International Women’s Day this year? The theme this year is Choose to Challenge, with events across the country and abroad, celebrating women’s achievements and raising awareness of the inequality and bias that, sadly, still remain for too many women and girls across the globe. On behalf of the all-party group on women in Parliament, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), will my right hon. Friend please agree to a debate in this place in Government time to mark International Women’s Day?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I refer my hon. Friend to my earlier answer that this is a matter for the Backbench Business Committee. It is why it was given so much time in the Chamber, so that it could take care of these very important debates, such as the one that we are having later today for the holocaust memorial. I would add that the Government prioritise the rights of women and have done a great deal of work in terms of their international aid budget regarding the education of women and girls to ensure that girls up to the age of 12 receive an education, and therefore it is a Governmental priority.
Mr Speaker
May I just add that the House Service will also be recognising International Women’s Day?
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Shopworkers, particularly those in supermarkets and other food stores, have really been on the frontline during this pandemic, keeping us supplied with the essentials of life. They do not have the option of working from home. Yet, too often, retail workers face abuse and poor treatment from a few customers. Just yesterday, one of my staff witnessed a shopworker being spat at for asking someone to wear a mask going into the store. Can we have a debate in Government time on the impact of covid-19 on retail workers?
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I begin by saying that I hope the hon. Lady did not mind my mentioning her earlier, without having given her notice, with regard to the Samaritans, but as I saw that she was in the Chamber, I hoped that she would take it as a compliment?
The issue that the hon. Lady raises is a really serious one. The protection of the vital work done by people in supermarkets is one that we should not forget. We often talk about the vital work done by people in the emergency services, but, actually, during this pandemic, ensuring that people have access to the necessities of life has been courageously done by shop workers across the country. They are protected by the normal law, and if somebody has spat at a worker in a supermarket, that is illegal and the police should be notified and the law should be enforced. Certainly, the Government will do everything they can to encourage the correct enforcement of the law.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con) [V]
If vaccination is, as he believes, the cavalry riding to our rescue, may we confidently expect a statement from the Prime Minister as soon as the vulnerable have had their jabs and absorbed them on how he will lift restrictions in an orderly way and set the people free?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am always a bit nervous about these military analogies, though the distinguished Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee will know a great deal more about this than I do, because some cavalry charges are more successful than others. It depends whether we are talking about Omdurman or—[Interruption.] Balaclava, indeed. Thank you for that helpful prompt, Mr Speaker. None the less, my right hon. Friend makes a very important point. The delivery of a safe and effective vaccine is the best way to protect the most vulnerable and save thousands of lives, and great strides are being made in protecting the population. There remains a long and difficult road ahead and there will be a considerable time lag until we can expect these vaccinations to help ease pressure on the NHS, bearing in mind that it takes a fortnight from vaccination for the vaccine to begin to take its effect. If we succeed, we will be protecting huge numbers of people from the virus. Eventually, that will allow us to remove many of the restrictions that we have endured for so long. It is wonderful that the Prime Minister is in Scotland today visiting Valneva, so we are rolling out more vaccines potentially and this has had great support from Her Majesty’s Government.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
The Ministry of Defence recently disclosed to me that Saudi armed forces were trained with £2.4 million of taxpayers’ money from the secretive integrated activity fund. Can we therefore have a debate in Government time on British security support to Gulf countries with abysmal human rights records, such as Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, that continue to wage a disastrous war in Yemen while imprisoning hundreds of peaceful political prisoners, such as Hasan Mushaima, who should be immediately freed?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Government have very strict rules, both on arms sales and on our relationships with countries around the world in terms of military development. These matters are regularly debated in the House. We work with our allies to help them in their military, and it is right and proper that we should do so, but we also maintain the highest standards of human rights.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) [V]
May we have an update from the Leader of the House on the progress of the restoration and renewal programme for the Palace of Westminster?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is a model of brevity in her questions. I will not be quite so brief in the answer, because this is a key subject. The Sponsor Body is due to publish its strategic review on the restoration and renewal programme soon. That will enable the parties involved to consider options in the light of the economic effect of the coronavirus. As Leader of the House, I want to ensure that the Palace of Westminster remains the home of our democracy for future generations. In the first instance, that means getting on with the works that are immediately possible; restoration and renewal should not be used as a cause for delaying works that everyone knows need to take place—I am thinking of things such as the restoration of the Victoria Tower, which the Commons, at any rate, is keen to proceed with, and, in particular, works relating to fire safety. A great deal has been done on that, but concerns have recently been raised with me about the hammer-beam roof in Westminster Hall, and I would make that an absolute priority in terms of fire safety. It has lasted since the reign of Richard II and I hope it can last another 700-odd years. I hope I will still be here then and you too, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.] Well, 700, I am not that ambitious! I am glad that progress has been made on reducing the fire risk already, but more is required, which is why it is good news that the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority, which were established in legislation during my time as Leader of the House, are on schedule to prepare options for Parliament to consider in a timely fashion. When we come to consider those options, we need to be anxious to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent on vital works, not on a gold-plated scheme. We have to explain to our constituents when we spend money on ourselves, so the vital works test will be a key one. As we save the Palace, there must be no blank cheque.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) [V]
Last week, the Prime Minister disagreed with me when referring to the conclusions of experts, doctors and others on the role of structural racism in the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. Surely any vaccine hesitancy strategy must include addressing that if it is to maximise its success. Although the Government have not heeded calls to prioritise these communities for vaccine roll-out, the Government have finally begun to see some sense and, as I understand it, will now at least record ethnicity data as part of the roll-out. Will the Leader of the House confirm whether the Government will consider allocating time to debate the evidence on the success of the vaccine roll-out, particularly in relation to the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on BAME communities? Does he agree that it would be helpful for the vaccine ethnicity data to be publicly released regularly, not least to inform this House’s debates accordingly?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend the Minister for Equalities has been looking into the effects of the coronavirus on minority communities, and has reported and spoken to the House about it before. Obviously, this is an issue of concern and I am sure it will be brought up in the House in future. As regards the vaccine, I think the hon. Lady is extremely helpful in raising this issue, because she can help get across the message, better than I can, that this vaccine is safe for all communities and all communities should be encouraged to come forward for it. That is certainly what the Government are trying to ensure happens, but her help in doing this, with her constituents and more widely, is extremely welcome, and I am grateful to her.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con) [V]
Due to the excellent progress in rolling out the vaccines, we can start to look ahead with increasing clarity. One sector of business that has faced real hardship is the conference industry, a sector with a long and diverse supply chain, ranging from hospitality to exhibition stand construction. Please may we have a debate about that sector, to consider what can be done to ensure that it bounces back quickly, as it is so important for jobs and it is central to the economy of not only Harrogate and Knaresborough, but, of course, other constituencies around the UK?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Her Majesty’s Government recognise that the conferencing and wider events and exhibitions sector has been most severely affected by covid-19. The Government also recognise that in normal times, the sector makes a significant economic contribution to the UK, not just in direct expenditure by business visitors, but through the trade transacted at events, so it is unfortunate that this has not been able to resume. While activity is prohibited, event venues and organisers can make use of the Government’s economic support package, including the coronavirus job retention scheme and the various grant schemes. I join my hon. Friend in praising the Harrogate convention centre for becoming a Nightingale hospital and therefore being able to help the community widely.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Now that we have taken back control and parliamentary sovereignty has been restored, how will the Government respond to resolutions made by the House on motions proposed by Opposition parties? In the past two weeks, the House has agreed four propositions, with cross-party support and no dissent, after the Government withdrew their amendments. How or when will the Government respond to those resolutions of the House, as they did during the 2017-19 Parliament?
Mr Rees-Mogg
As a general rule, the Government respond to debates during the debate. The Government’s position is set out from the Dispatch Box, at both the opening and closing of the debate, but it is important to remember the structures of the House and that resolutions of this House regarding expenditure have to come on Crown initiative. This is an important constitutional point. The House of Commons is here to challenge the Government over their expenditure, not to tell the Government to make expenditure, so all motions must be borne in the context of understanding the constitutional significance of Crown initiative on expenditure.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend continue to ensure regular updates to the House on Britain’s world-leading vaccination roll-out programme? Will he join me in praising Northamptonshire NHS, which has one of the very best records in the whole country for the vaccine? As of yesterday, 86,000 Northamptonshire residents have been vaccinated, which includes 86% of those over 80 and 66% of those over 75.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I congratulate Northamptonshire on its success. I am sure it is down to having my hon. Friend as a Member of Parliament that it has done so well, because he is an absolute champion for his constituency and for his county. The figure I have is that so far, 7,164,387 have been vaccinated. Yes, the House will be kept up to date, though I suggest to the House that Sky News has a fantastic website that has a number spinning up so that one can see exactly how many vaccinations have taken place. I hope it has not been updated since I have been in the Chamber, but over 7 million is very impressive. More than 80% of over-80s have now been vaccinated, along with more than 75% of elderly care home residents, so great progress is being made, and it is obviously important to ensure that the House is kept informed of that success.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) [V]
I thank the Leader of the House for writing to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on 20 January, asking the Minister to respond to me on the various questions I have raised on fire safety. I am also grateful that the official Opposition will be using their debate on Monday to discuss fire safety, but we still need the Government to review the programme motion on the Fire Safety Bill to allow more time to properly debate the various amendments tabled by Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs to protect leaseholders from exorbitant costs. Can the Leader of the House update us on any conversations he has had with the Secretary of State in that regard?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I actually wrote to the hon. Lady yesterday with some news on chasing the Department for a response for her. As regards the programme motion for when Lords amendments come back, what she says and asks for has been heard and noted, but that is not a promise of any change; it is merely a recognition that it is not an entirely unreasonable request.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) [V]
Given the success of the stamp duty holiday in boosting home sales, will the Chancellor of Exchequer come to the House to make a statement on extending the holiday until the end of 2021 to help shore up economic growth and avoid the risk of a slump in the housing industry at a critical time?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think I am not allowed to refer hon. Members to what I wrote on this subject before I joined Government—which are, of course, not necessarily the views I hold any more. I will undoubtedly make representations on behalf of my hon. Friend to the Chancellor, because it is worth bearing in mind that cutting stamp duty has boosted an industry that employs nearly 750,000 people. However, it is also worth bearing in mind that the Government need some revenue to pay for all that the Government have to do.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for allowing me to raise a point of order in relation to what I believe was a misleading statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday. He said—
Jim McMahon
I am more than happy to take that advice, Mr Speaker. Thank you.
The Prime Minister said:
“It was only recently that the shadow Transport Secretary was saying that quarantine measures should be relaxed.”—[Official Report, 27 January 2021; Vol. 688, c. 366.]
He went on to repeat a similar comment. This relates to a statement that was made over 200 days ago in July last year and had nothing at all to do with current regulations or our current covid rates. It was in response to the Government themselves lifting quarantine restrictions for a list of countries. We have been critical of the Government for failing to have a proper track and trace system and failing to do pre-screening and testing on arrival, so, far from calling for relaxation, we were criticising the Government for their own failures. I think the record should be put straight.
Mr Speaker
That is not a point of order for the Chair, but hopefully those on the Treasury Bench will have picked up on it. If nothing else, it is now on the record. I will now suspend the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Backbench Business
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Holocaust Memorial Day 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
We now come to the general debate on Holocaust Memorial Day 2021. It may be helpful to inform the House that the debate is likely to run until 3.45.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Holocaust Memorial Day 2021.
It is a privilege to open this important debate to mark Holocaust Memorial Day, which took place yesterday, 27 January, the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, which remains one of the most dark and horrific crime scenes of world history. I would like to thank in particular the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for co-sponsoring this debate.
Over the past 20 years, Holocaust Memorial Day has become an important part of our national life, with the numbers of events growing every year. That is largely down to the incredible work of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, and the Holocaust Educational Trust, which both work tirelessly to ensure that the collective memory of the holocaust is renewed and strengthened with every passing year. The pandemic has meant that this memorial day has been marked in different ways, but nevertheless thousands of activities have taken place across the country, using resources that the HMDT developed to support online commemorations.
Normally, Members from across the House would have had the opportunity to sign a book of commitment organised by the Holocaust Educational Trust, in which we remember the victims of the holocaust, and pledge to fight against hatred, racism and antisemitism, wherever we see it. Last night we were all able, wherever we were in the UK, to participate in the first fully digital national holocaust commemorative ceremony.
Holocaust Memorial Day is when we remember the millions of people murdered under Nazi persecution, and in the genocides that followed in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfur. The theme this year is “Be the light in the darkness”, and at the close of the ceremony last night we lit candles. Those candles symbolised the lives of those who were murdered in the death camps and subsequent genocides, as well as the lives of the survivors who still live and walk among us, and those who have passed away.
The candles also represented hope—the hope that comes from a collective determination never to allow such atrocities to take place again; the hope that comes from standing together against antisemitism and all forms of prejudice. As the years pass by, the number of men and women who witnessed and survived the holocaust sadly gets smaller, and it is an incredible privilege to meet those survivors and hear their extraordinary testimonies. They are stories of courage, survival, hope, and forgiveness, in the face of unthinkable horror and suffering.
A few years ago I had the privilege of meeting Lily Ebert, now aged 97, who survived Auschwitz. Lily is a remarkable woman, a true survivor. Just last week she went for her first walk, having recovered from covid-19. Susan Pollack moved many of us to tears at the Conservative conference in 2018, by recounting her experiences as a young girl in both Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen. Many have said this before, and it is so true, that meeting these survivors is an unforgettable experience. I am always left stunned and humbled by their capacity for forgiveness, and the choice to love those who showed them only hate and violence. That is light in darkness.
I pay tribute to the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust, which enables young people to understand the past, and empowers them to stand up against antisemitism and prejudice in all its forms. In March last year, due to the pandemic it was forced to suspend its overseas projects and in-person educational programmes, but the trust has quickly adapted to ensure that its work is continued at an impressive scale online, with survivors using video calls to share their testimonies. The responses shared on social media afterwards show how strikingly powerful those sessions are, especially for young people.
Holocaust Memorial Day is about remembrance, but it should also be a moment that moves us to consider the darkness still around us today. I am talking about the cancer of antisemitism that even now eats away inside some of our institutions, and that spawns and thrives on social media, and casts dark shadows across our own society and those of some of our closest neighbours.
Take, for example, the Halle synagogue attack in Germany in October 2019. The synagogue was targeted in an antisemitic attack, and the armed attacker unsuccessfully tried to enter the synagogue, before fatally shooting two non-Jewish victims and injuring two others. The perpetrator espoused radical far-right views. He was an antisemite and holocaust denier. He livestreamed his actions so that they could be celebrated in dark places online.
Even closer to home, we could look at what is happening in our universities. I am sure that some colleagues will want to raise that this afternoon. How can it be that Jewish students in this country do not feel protected by our institutions, places of openness and learning turned into dark corners where Jewish young people experience fear? The adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance modern definition of antisemitism should merely be the first step in tackling rising levels of antisemitism, yet even that is seen as too much to ask for from some universities, whose academics spuriously claim that the definition would shut down legitimate debate about Israeli Government policies.
We must not shy away from the reality that modern antisemitism invariably morphs into anti-Zionism and the demonisation of Israel itself. The late Rabbi Lord Sacks, a man of extraordinary wisdom and kindness, once said:
“One of the enduring facts of history is that most anti-Semites do not think of themselves as anti-Semites. ‘We don’t hate Jews’, they said in the Middle Ages, ‘just their religion’. ‘We don’t hate Jews’, they said in the 19th century, ‘just their race’. ‘We don’t hate Jews’, they say now, ‘just their nation state’.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 September 2018; Vol. 792, c. 2413.]
I have had the privilege of visiting Yad Vashem, Israel’s holocaust memorial, on numerous occasions, and I find each experience deeply moving. On leaving the museum, visitors walk out on to a balcony overlooking a vista of Jerusalem, and it is impossible not to reflect on the place of sanctuary and refuge that the nation state of Israel continues to provide for Jews still fleeing persecution today.
Holocaust Memorial Day is also about remembering the other genocides the world has witnessed. I think about the people I met in 1998 in the Bosnian town of Foča, a town described by Human Rights Watch as a “closed, dark place”, which saw the systematic removal of its Muslim population by Serb forces in a brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing. It saw forced detention, rape, expulsions, murder on a horrific scale, and destruction of historic mosques and other cultural sites.
I think too of the victims and the survivors of the Rwandan genocide, which happened right under the noses of the international community in 1994. I, along with numerous colleagues in my party, used to spend part of my summer recess in Rwanda with Project Umubano, which was founded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). On each of those visits, we would visit the genocide memorial in Kigali, where we would lay a wreath. We had the opportunity to hear the testimonies of survivors—people such as the wonderful Freddy Mutanguha, who was one of the 95,000 children and teenagers in Rwanda orphaned during those terrible three months between April and July ’94. In Rwanda, the dark places of genocide were the beautiful green hillsides, the churches, the sports grounds.
One of the lessons of those visits is that genocides do not happen by accident. They follow a pattern. They require planning. It requires powerful people to deliberate and take calculated decisions to persecute and, ultimately, visit death upon entire communities. Weapons and implements of torture and murder need to be bought, acquired, constructed. Genocides require ideologies to flourish that focus on differences between people and groups—ideologies that glorify strength and superiority, that systematically dehumanise minorities. Those ideologies infect school rooms, universities, bars and individual homes. They are ideologies that create those dark places where the unthinkable somehow becomes justifiable and even normal.
It requires methods of mass communication and propaganda—radio, television and, in our own age, the unregulated channels of social media—to turn communities against each other. Most of all, genocides require people to turn a blind eye—neighbours, work colleagues, friends, even family members. Genocides require people to turn away. They require good people to do nothing.
I believe that darkness threatens every new generation. Old hatreds resurface time and again. Maybe they never fully go away and are just waiting for vehicles to emerge to legitimise and breathe new life into them at opportune moments. Being light in darkness means staying vigilant against that, it means having the clarity to identify it, and it means having the courage to confront it and push back wherever possible—in our national institutions, in our own political parties, on social media, in our own constituencies. None of those is an easy thing to do, but on Holocaust Memorial Day we take renewed strength from being able to stand together, reflect on the events of the past and pledge to honour the memory of those whose lives were taken, by doing more—by doing what we can—to stand up against prejudice, antisemitism and hatred in all its forms.
Mr Speaker
We will start with a three-minute limit, in order to accommodate all Members who wish to contribute to this very, very important debate.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) [V]
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) on his very good contribution. It seems incomprehensible that so many people were complicit by their action or inaction in the uniquely horrific extermination of 6 million Jews, yet the holocaust is not an isolated genocide. Today, Uyghurs and Rohingyas are living through the nightmare of persecution, segregation, imprisonment and murder. Only by acting together, confronting prejudice and hate and being the light in the darkness can we conquer this evil.
I recently read my grandfather’s diaries, written when he escaped to Britain from Austria. Old and ill, he was interned in Huyton because he was deemed an enemy alien. His diaries reveal the trauma, the constant worry about relatives and the challenges faced by refugees. An eternal optimist, his diaries also describe the talent imprisoned with him—musicians, artists and academics—and that made me realise how many brilliant philosophers, musicians and scientists were lost because they were murdered by the Nazis.
As holocaust survivors inevitably die, it falls to us to keep the knowledge of what happened alive. My grandmother’s letter, written nine days before she was killed, in which she says twice, “Don’t forget me completely”, sealed my determination to fight racism and antisemitism wherever and whenever I meet it.
When I was first an MP, I was a Labour MP who happened to be Jewish, but when antisemitism moved to the mainstream of my party, I became a Jewish Labour MP—my identity interwoven with my work. The last five years have been difficult, long and lonely. I did enjoy support from the brave activists in the Jewish Labour Movement and from those colleagues who did call out antisemitism, and I will never forget the friendship and support between the four Jewish Labour women: Louise Ellman, Ruth Smeeth, Luciana Berger and myself. It was the women who stood together, worked together and simply would not give up. The tragedy is that they are no longer MPs. I salute their brave contribution, and I miss them.
A year has made a huge difference. By his actions, our party’s new leader is demonstrating zero tolerance of Jew hate, not just suspending and expelling individuals but transforming our culture and re-establishing trust with the Jewish community, who were hurt and genuinely frightened. As a party, we are finally focused on eliminating antisemitism, responding to the shameful findings of the Equality and Human Rights Commission report and restoring our core values.
The history of the Jews and our knowledge of present day genocides tells us that if we ignore prejudice and hate, it can deepen and destroy. I came into politics to fight racism, so I will always do all I can to nurture the light and conquer the darkness.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I bow in respect to the first two speeches, and I expect they will be matched by those that follow.
“We remember those who were murdered for who they were. We stand against prejudice, hostility and division in the world today. We learn from the tragedies and horrors of the past. We work towards a better future.”
Those were the words put out with the photograph of the candle we lit last night. Had I been born in the Dutch Jewish line of my family, I could have died at Bergen-Belsen with many of the other 113 members of grandfather’s extended family.
The purpose of the holocaust memorial and education centre is for us to know, to care and to act, whatever our heritage. It may be that the Secretary of State will announce that if the proposed national heritage memorial and learning centre is built—whether it is built in Victoria Tower Gardens or not—then entry will be free. We have always assumed it would be free, but the Government were not able to say that. What the Government did say through its agency is that the bulk of the money should be spent on education, not on construction.
The proposal in September 2015 was that the centre should be completed by 2020, a year ago, that it should have the support of the local authority wherever it was to be built, and that it could be built anywhere within 3 miles of London on a suitable site. Page 10 of the publication showed that and included: west of Regent’s park; Spitalfields; most of Southwark, including the Imperial War Museum—
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
indicated dissent.
Sir Peter Bottomley
The Secretary of State may shake his head. He will have his chance to speak. I want him at the moment to listen, if I may. I respect him and I respect what he tries to do, but I ask him to publish the analysis done before 2016 of the sites at the Imperial War Museum and Victoria Tower Gardens. I will publish what I know. He will need to consider what he is putting forward and his deputy needs to say whether he can seriously make a decision on the Secretary of State’s behalf when the Government are so implicated in an inappropriate scheme in an inappropriate place, with a design not accepted in Ottawa.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) [V]
I would like to pay tribute to all the Members who secured this debate. We really should have an annual debate to mark Holocaust Memorial Day.
The indications are, and the figures back this up, that antisemitism is on the rise not just in Britain but across Europe and perhaps elsewhere. For many of us, our own personal experiences, for example those just recounted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), back that up. Our personal experiences support the notion that antisemitism is on the rise in this country and elsewhere. The question is why is that?
I suspect that the reason is at least partly because the events of the holocaust of the 1930s and 1940s, and of world war two, are slipping from memory and into history. I am thinking of all the Holocaust survivors who spent their lives touring schools and colleges, writing and speaking, such as Leon Greenman, who lived most of his life in Ilford, close to my constituency. After world war two, Leon spent his life writing and talking about the holocaust. That generation is passing into history.
We know that historically racism often starts with the Jewish community and then spreads to other communities. Even in the middle ages, the crusades started by massacring Jewish communities across Europe before they started their genocidal mayhem against Muslims in the Holy Land. We also know that holocaust denial, or perhaps not so much holocaust denial but a tendency to say, “Well, there are a number of interpretations you can make of the holocaust,” is a sort of academic approach to moral relativism. There is a tendency, which is more widespread now than it was a few years ago, to put forward that pseudo-academic view. The question is: is that acceptable? The answer is no, it is not acceptable. The fact is that the holocaust was about one thing: the attempt to wipe an entire race off the face of the planet. It was not about anything else. It was simply that: genocide on a scale that has not been seen before or since. The crucial thing is that every time someone takes a moral relativist approach to the holocaust and its memory, it chips away at its historical integrity and undermines the beliefs of people such as those speaking today who want to remember how it really was.
I pay tribute to the Holocaust Educational Trust and its work in widening and deepening the knowledge of the holocaust. We all have a duty to widen that knowledge and to make sure that in the hearts and minds of future generations that collective memory is carried forward.
John Howell (Henley) (Con) [V]
Like the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), I am a trustee of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, which, as we have heard, is responsible for putting together Holocaust Memorial Day. I hope that Members logged on for last night’s ceremony and the national moment. If they did not, they are in a minority, because people logged on in their tens of thousands. I hope that, like me, they found it a very moving and emotional experience.
Last year, which marked 75 years since the liberation of Auschwitz, I was asked to remember one person in particular who was a victim of Nazi persecution. I decided not to do that. Putting on a yarmulke, I decided to remember all 6 million victims of Nazi persecution, and I remember them all today.
The horror of this genocide has been repeated subsequently. What brought it home to me was when I visited the concentration camp just outside the Polish town of Lublin, and saw an enormous number of plants and flowers growing. They grow so magnificently there because they are all growing on the ashes of human burials. Just think about that: all that beauty coming out of such a tragic and momentously horrific situation.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn and I wrote an article for the Daily Mirror online yesterday, in which we said:
“Speaking as a Christian and a Muslim, respectively, we both know that marking Holocaust Memorial Day is more important than ever. Commemorating the millions of people who were murdered in the Holocaust, under Nazi persecution and in the genocides that followed in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur is vital for us to learn where persecution based on faith and identity can lead.”
As the Chief Rabbi said last night:
“If we are all the light in the darkness, think of what a wonderful world we can achieve.”
Let us, in participating in this debate, aim to be that light in the darkness.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) [V]
I begin by thanking my honourable colleagues and co-sponsors of this vital debate, all honourable colleagues who are speaking today, those who have been marking Holocaust Memorial Day, and of course the Backbench Business Committee. Thanks must also go to the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust for its inspirational work; to the Holocaust Educational Trust, led by Karen Pollock, for teaching future generations; to the Community Security Trust; and to Danny Stone and the Antisemitism Policy Trust.
It is crucial that, in remembrance, we do not picture atrocities of genocide perpetrated during the Holocaust as historical events. It is important to reflect on the reality that the seeds of antisemitic distrust, prejudice and hatred were spread years prior to armbands being worn, ghettos being built, trains being loaded and gas chambers being filled.
A recent briefing from the Antisemitism Policy Trust found that throughout history Jewish people have been blamed for diseases and pandemics. Indeed, since the start of the coronavirus pandemic, these age-old tropes have re-emerged in updated forms, on our social media channels and popular antisemitic online forums, such as 4chan and Gab. It did not take long for the virus to be named “the Jew flu”—part of a Zionist agenda to start world war three—or for antisemites online to encourage people deliberately to try to infect Jewish people, as part of the “holocough”.
In its latest report, the Community Security Trust recorded 789 antisemitic incidents that took place across the UK in the first six months of 2020. It would be easy to dismiss the instances outlined as the actions of a deluded fringe, but that would also be foolish and could be deadly. An article published in The Guardian last April found that referrals to prevent online radicalisation had fallen by 50% since the start of lockdown, which has created ideal conditions for online predators and trolls to spread hate and lies.
We must do more to stamp out antisemitism on online platforms, call on the social media giants to do more to police such content, and introduce more stringent barriers in the forthcoming online safety Bill. We disrespect the memory of millions who died in the holocaust if we fail to take action to stamp out the recurring lies that culminated in such widespread destruction of life 80 years ago. We are, indeed, arrogant to presume that stereotypes of the past can find no audience in the future. We would therefore do well to live out the theme of this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day—light the darkness—in our approach to antisemitism going forward.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Three years ago, I stood with the wonderful Susan Pollack, the Auschwitz survivor, at the Kigali memorial site in Rwanda, the largest burial ground in the world. We were mourning the million who were slaughtered in a 90-day frenzy of killing and brutality in Rwanda. Most of those who took part have been brought to justice, through either the Arusha international tribunal or the Gacaca courts, which have processed hundreds of thousands who have returned to Rwanda from the hills of the Kivus because they see that the process is decent and fair.
The death penalty in Rwanda has been abolished and most countries—including the United States, Canada, Belgium, Sweden and others—have extradited people back to Rwanda. As John Adams said, “Facts are stubborn things”. Living free in Britain today are five alleged Rwandan genocide perpetrators: three were senior Government officials in the 1994 genocidal regime and one of those was allegedly heavily involved in the notorious massacre of 45,000 Tutsis at Murambi—the worst massacre since the second world war.
On 14 September 2006, the British and Rwandan Governments agreed a memorandum of understanding; I first raised this matter in the House on 5 December 2006. Extradition warrants were signed the same month. In 2015, a British district judge ruled that even though there was a prima facie case of genocide made out against the five individuals, it could breach their human rights to send them back to Rwanda, and that ruling was upheld on appeal. The Rwandan judicial authorities have given up on British justice and extradition and requested that Britain undertake prosecution here. The authorities indicated that the collection of evidence already laid out in the court papers and filed in the UK via the war crimes unit would take up to 10 years to process.
These are the facts. Living in this country today, free and at large for more than 14 years now, are five people accused of the most heinous of crimes: genocide participation—crimes against humanity. Four out of five are living at the taxpayer’s expense and more than £3 million of taxpayers’ money has been spent on meeting their legal fees. Is it any wonder that in Africa, and in the UK, too, people accuse the British establishment of hypocrisy? To them, it looks suspiciously as if crimes against white Europeans are taken more seriously than those perpetrated against black Africans.
I call upon all those who care about the holocaust, genocide and justice to take up this cause. The souls of the slaughtered Tutsis cry out for justice, but Britain has turned a deaf ear. We should all be ashamed.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
It is nearly 76 years since the end of the second world war in Europe, but the lessons that the world needs to learn from the events that culminated in the holocaust remain as relevant today as they were then. The holocaust did not begin and end with Auschwitz and the other extermination camps; its roots lay in the falsehoods and hatred that festered for centuries before and continue to exist today.
In the 1920s and 1930s, that hate and antisemitism was whipped up at rallies, and pamphlets were published that transformed Germany from an advanced liberal democracy into a vicious dictatorship. Today, that poison and those lies have not gone away. We rarely see the mass rallies and events, but the battle has moved online, where hate speech and holocaust denial can be found at a disturbing level. There are those who hide behind the idea that somehow this should be allowed, under some perverse idea that it is free speech.
The other night, I re-watched the excellent David Baddiel documentary in which he made contact with holocaust deniers. I was particularly struck by his concerns about what he termed to be “soft” holocaust denial—the idea that, yes, something may have gone on, but that it has been exaggerated and somehow blame lies on all sides. This is extremely dangerous. We see today populist Governments in Poland and Hungary seeking to rewrite history, to airbrush out the involvement of their countrymen and women in terrible crimes.
I believe that the holocaust is not just a terrible one-off event that happened in our history, carried out by a madman and his thugs. The truth is very different. Before the establishment of mechanised extermination in death camps, Einsatzgruppen squads followed the German advance into eastern Europe and Russia, shooting over 2 million men, women and children. These groups were led not by so-called thugs but by a university lecturer, a theologian, a doctor. These should be warnings to us about how this can take over.
History teaches us the events of the past, but it is also a warning for our future. The holocaust is a fact. There are no alternative facts, and we should never allow that to be said.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) [V]
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for selecting this timely debate. It is important that we as politicians learn as much as we can about what happens when politics goes wrong, as they did in Germany in the late 1930s and early ’40s under Adolf Hitler’s Nazi party.
I have joined students from my South East Cornwall constituency on a visit to Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland, organised by the Holocaust Educational Trust. There cannot be a starker reminder of the terrible atrocities man can visit upon man. The new museum displays prisoners’ mugshots and substantial amounts of hair, suitcases and shoes taken from murdered prisoners. It is an educational journey I will never forget, and I know the impact it had on the visiting students.
I have also visited Israel with the Conservative Friends of Israel, as declared in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Along with colleagues, I visited Yad Vashem, Israel’s holocaust memorial. It was an incredibly moving visit. I found the hall of names particularly poignant. The ceiling of the hall displays 600 photographs and fragments of pages of testimony. Over 2 million of these pages are stored around the hall, a room for the 6 million men, women and children from the diverse Jewish world who were murdered by the Nazis. On the same visit, I attended the national ceremony of Yom HaShoah—Holocaust Remembrance Day.
I have also visited the holocaust exhibition in our own Imperial War Museum, with my husband Bob. The photograph displays and artefacts show dramatically the mass executions carried out as part of the Nazi final solution policy.
At this time of the pandemic, when we cannot travel and should stay at home, it is important that we continue to remember and that we ensure that people can still learn about this terrible time, so that it does not happen again. The Holocaust Educational Trust has a lot of resources on its website—het.org.uk—and I recommend this important resource.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The theme for this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day is:
“Be the light in the darkness”.
It challenges this generation to shine a light whenever we encounter darkness, whether we encounter it internationally in Xinjiang or when we hear the chants of antisemitism in the street, community or workplace. In the fullness of time—[Inaudible.]—it is easy to assume that we would never see the horror of a country actively seeking to destroy and wipe out any trace of the Jewish community ever again. “Never again”, we were told, but each time we have conspiracy theories on the internet around Jews, we take a step back towards the hatred that brought the Nazis to power in the 1930s. Therefore, it is vital that we continue to tell the stories of those who survived the unimaginable cruelty and horror of the holocaust.
Today, I want to tell the House the story of one of the amazing individuals who showed courage and acted as a light in the darkness, and who I hope will be an example to this generation. It is the story of Manfred Goldberg and his teacher Herr Bacher. Manfred and his family were transported to the Riga ghetto. When they arrived, Manfred found that his primary school teacher Herr Bacher was also there. As Manfred’s father had escaped to England, Herr Bacher prepared Manfred for his bar mitzvah. Miraculously, a scroll was found. Manfred said:
“On the Saturday of which I speak a prayer service was held in a private room. I was not aware of any prayer services before that week, nor did I experience any subsequently during my three and a half years in various camps. My teacher had somehow organised the required quorum of ten men, and I read the portion he had so kindly taught me. Organising the quorum was a major achievement, as practically everyone had to do slave labour daily, seven days a week.”
For Herr Bacher to ensure Manfred had his bar mitzvah, even during all the chaos and upheaval in their lives, is a simple but hugely powerful form of resistance.
The story of Manfred is a story of resistance to the efforts of the Nazi party to eradicate Jewish presence, culture, and communities. People strove to celebrate their faith, observe their culture, continue to educate their children and form communities. Each of these acts was a way of claiming agency over the way they lived their lives in the face of the darkest of situations. The holocaust reshaped our understanding of global responsibility, the meaning of human rights and fundamentally altered our view of democracy. Holocaust Memorial Day gives us all an opportunity to remember our responsibility to work for a better and safer future for everyone, regardless of geography, race, religion, or sexuality.
I want to highlight the words of the Holocaust survivor, Dorit Oliver-Wolff, as she implores us to “put politics aside” and recognise the atrocities that are ongoing in Xinjiang. In her words, “this is a genocide” and:
“It is inhuman and it was equally inhuman”—
when—
“all my family was killed”.
Holocaust Memorial Day reminds us to do all we can to prevent human rights abuses such as the forced labour, the religious persecution and the forced sterilisation that the Uyghur population in China are being subjected to. It is imperative that we act as quickly—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I call, by video link, Dr Matthew Offord.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) [V]
In last year’s debate, I spoke about the only concentration camp on British soil, on the island of Alderney. Lager Sylt and Lager Norderney contained Russian and Polish prisoners-of-war, as well as Jewish slave labourers. I raised the issue of undisclosed and unrecorded burial sites of murdered inmates and told the House:
“Rabbinic law dictates that the grave sites of Jewish people should not be disturbed.”
However, I expressed my personal view that
“unmarked graves, mass graves and locations of bodies hidden by their murderers are not proper graves in themselves, and I believe that it is appropriate for the identification of bodies to be undertaken”—[Official Report, 23 January 2020; Vol. 670, c. 492.]
Some people took my words as advocating a full exhumation of the Channel Islands, but that is not necessary or even desirable. The burial site on Alderney was designated and formally marked by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission as an official war grave, but it was deaccessioned by the CWGC in 1961.
Back in July 2019, my right hon. Friend Lord Pickles, head of the UK delegation of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, along with the deputy head, Sally Sealey, and Dr Gilly Carr, a member of the UK delegation, visited Alderney. The purpose of the trip was to make an assessment of the island’s holocaust-related heritage sites after the revelation of new geophysical evidence and the potential presence of further bodies in a mass grave on Longis Common on Alderney.
Putting aside the religious issues, it has been stressed to me that opening mass graves is not as revealing as one might imagine that and that gains in knowledge are slight compared with the moral and spiritual costs of disturbance. Knowledge already exists about the sites, and the combination of non-intrusive means of investigation, world war two aerial imagery and research of the records should be sufficient to tell us, with some certitude, what lies beneath Longis Common. I have been advised that a considerable amount is already known about what lies beneath that ground. That is because the British Government are still sitting on embargoed files that detail what they found at the cemetery after the war and their own excavations at the cemetery. Today, I am calling on the Government to find the missing records of the 1961 exhumation, and the detailed records that the UK made of each set of remains by the British excavation in Alderney. We have a duty to ensure that no one is left behind. I ask the Government to play their part and do the right thing by releasing all information and documents in their possession.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
Yesterday, my friend Paula Sherriff—a much missed former Member of this House—tweeted a quote that read:
“If we held a moment of silence for every victim of the Holocaust we would be silent for eleven and a half years.”
It is often easy to feel disconnected from the figures and statistics that are read out in this place. Six million people. Six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis. Most of us will struggle to imagine a number too huge to picture in our minds. It is easier, then, for us to imagine what it might feel like in our own lives if overnight the family living next door to us were to disappear, if several of our classmates and teachers did not turn up for school one day, and if there were noticeably fewer people around—emptier shops, cafés, gyms and school playgrounds—just as there has been during lockdown.
But 6 million people did not catch an infectious respiratory virus; they were forced out of their homes, rounded up, robbed, starved, humiliated, branded, tortured, experimented on and killed because of their race and religion. One deranged bully devised and built a murderous plan to wipe out an entire race of people. Of course he could not do this alone, so he tapped into some of our most complicated human flaws—weakness, fear, vulnerability, ignorance—and harnessed them to produce mass inhumanity. Despotic bullies disarm us by yelling their hatred and spite. We all fear becoming their next target. The safest option is to run and hide, to be compliant and complicit. Our instinct is to protect ourselves and those closest to us. But some chose not to.
The people in this place are all here because we chose, one way or another, not to be bystanders. The political arena is not for the faint-hearted, and, sadly, despite what we all now know about the atrocities enacted by the leaders of the Nazi regime, the world has not learnt to stop electing bullies who use their positions of power to make the lives of some intolerable, and they do so in plain sight. Some shout about building walls, inciting hatred, fuelling division, legitimising racism and even encouraging violence. Others arrange to have their political opponents or critics assassinated and poisoned, try to rig elections, and refuse to relinquish power or recognise democracy.
Right now, we know that there are groups of people being persecuted, imprisoned, rounded up, robbed, tortured and branded because of their race and religion. And what are we doing to stop it? We have to find ways to make sure that we are not being mere bystanders. Let us all be braver, like those who resisted. As Edmund Burke said:
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) [V]
Every year we mark Holocaust Memorial Day here in this House and around the world, and remember the unprecedented and unmatched evil of the holocaust. Yesterday marked the 76th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. Every year, the number of living holocaust survivors and those living righteous among the nations dwindles further, and as the holocaust slips out of living memory, the task of educating people about it and combating holocaust denial becomes more and more pressing. It is our duty as a society to educate the next generation. I pay tribute to the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust and the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, which keep that memory alive.
When we see antisemitism in our own country, we have a duty to call it out. When we see antisemitism in other countries, and being tolerated or adopted by their regimes, again, we have a duty to call that out. Our commitment to human rights in our foreign policy and trade policy must reflect that. Seventy-six years ago, the world said, “Never again.” Every year on this day, we say, “Never again.” But the truth is that it has happened again and is happening again. It happened again in Rwanda, and in Cambodia, and Bosnia. It happened more recently to the Yazidis and the Rohingya. It is happening to the Christian minority in northern Nigeria, too: Open Doors’ “World Watch List 2021” report highlighted the escalating violence against that community, with more than 3,000 Christians killed last year.
Right now, it is happening to the Uyghurs in Xinjiang. We have all seen it happening there. We have seen the videos of people loaded on to trains bound for camps. According to Human Rights Watch, 1.3 million Uyghurs and other Turkic-speaking Muslims have suffered under the Chinese regime’s actions. We have heard the chilling reports of what goes on in those camps, where many people have been sent for expressing their ethnic identity or practising their religion. We have testimonies from survivors. Our Government’s actions to prevent imports associated with the camps from entering this country, by strengthening the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to allow fines for companies that do not comply with transparency obligations, are welcome, but we should always consider ways to exert more pressure on these regimes, such as Magnitsky-style sanctions against listed persons who are complicit in human rights abuses.
Nothing past or present compares to the holocaust for its inhumanity, but we live in a world where there is still antisemitism and genocide. It is now more important than ever that we are able to keep that flame alight and say “Never again”.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab) [V]
I thank everyone who made this debate possible. Holocaust Memorial Day stands as a reminder of where racism and the dehumanisation of others can lead. Many years ago, I travelled to Auschwitz-Birkenau with children from my constituency, on a visit organised by the Holocaust Educational Trust. No one who has made that visit will ever forget the experience. The industrial mass killing, the meticulous gathering of clothing and goods—not random acts of chaotic violence but the most organised programme of killing in history.
We recoil and say “Never again”, but since the holocaust there have been further atrocities in the world fuelled by racial hatred and the desire to demonise people because of their faith or because they are a minority of one kind or another. The lessons for today still matter. We should never engage in the conferring of collective guilt, we should openly reject conspiracy theories about dual loyalties or international cabals influencing world events, and we should reject the world view that results in a hierarchy of victimhood where some cannot accept that Jewish people could really be the victims of racism.
It is sadly the case that antisemitism still exists in our society, and indeed became more prominent in recent years, including in my own party. It never represented the Labour tradition, which at its best is a politics open to people of all faiths and none and which seeks to break down barriers, not reinforce them, yet still antisemitic views found a home in some of the darker corners of the left, as well as the far right. I am glad and relieved that, under new leadership, we have firmly turned a page on that era. To do so fully and completely, we must not only reject antisemitism but the worldview that gives rise to it, the conspiracy theories that go along with it and the hierarchy of victimhood that is blind to it.
The experience of remembering the holocaust should also inform the ways that we think about refugees today. The UK can be proud of the role we played not only during the war, in liberating the world from tyranny, but before the war, in making a new home for around 10,000 children through the Kindertransport programme. Each one of those children was given a new life and a new chance. Today, when child refugees are still trying to reach our shores, we should remember how precious that chance of a new life can be, and what an amazing contribution to our country can be made by those who are given a chance.
The lessons of Holocaust Memorial Day are not only those from history; they live with us every day. The greatest of all is that we share much more through our common humanity than anything that could drive us apart.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con) [V]
It is an honour to take part in this debate today. It was disappointing early on in this debate, however, to hear a Member once again using this debate for their own personal campaign against the location of the UK holocaust memorial. It was, in my opinion, inappropriate and offensive.
I want to begin with the name of Hilel Gruzin. His name was provided to me with the Yellow Candle I received for Yom HaShoah earlier this year. Hilel was one of the victims of the holocaust, dying at the age of just 21 in 1944 in Latvia, and I hope we can remember his name today. His memory is a blessing.
I want to thank Brigg Town Council for the memorial day ceremony we undertook on Sunday. We were unable, of course, to meet in person this year, but I thank the town council for organising what was anyway a very moving memorial day. I also pay particular tribute to Rabbi Thomas Salamon from my synagogue, who provided some words to us on that day, particularly recounting his story—of his family and of growing up as the son of a mother who was interned in one of the camps.
I want briefly to talk about the work of the APPG against antisemitism, of which I am proud to be co-chair. The work we have been doing this year has largely focused on online antisemitism, which we know is a growing problem in this country. It is something we have to get a grip on, and get a grip on quickly, given the prevalence of social media and the growth of it.
We hear a lot about Facebook, and a lot about Twitter and TikTok, but one platform we have heard less about is Amazon, a company that many of us would herald for helping get us through these past few months—it has many strings to its bow—but, sadly, one that has taken a very long time to remove antisemitic content. Only recently, 92 books were removed from its platform because of holocaust denial material. At the end of last year, my co-chair and I had to write to Amazon about antisemitic responses that came in the form of Alexa—quite appalling responses—and we have had to write to it again regarding the content it has on its site from the notorious conspiracy theorist and antisemite David Icke, which although provided by a third party, is accessed via Amazon.
In the final seconds I have, my plea to all these platforms is to act responsibly. They cannot contract out their responsibility in regard to antisemitism. This is an area that, sadly, is growing, and they have to do more. I hope that the online harms Bill will provide an opportunity for us to ensure they do more.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) [V]
It is an honour to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I was privileged to join the online commemorative ceremony to mark Holocaust Memorial Day yesterday to honour those who were murdered for who they were and to stand against prejudice and hatred today.
Holocaust Memorial Day reminds us that there are fewer people around the world with direct lived experience of that hellish extermination. It is crucial to hear the deeply moving testimonies of the remaining survivors, because the message of suffering, pain, trauma and human cruelty must never ever be forgotten. Those testimonies remind us of the impact of the holocaust: the lives cut short, the families ripped apart, and the courage and bravery of those who survived who seek to ensure that their suffering informs a better future for every one of us. The theme of the Holocaust Memorial Day this year is “Be the light in the darkness”. It encourages everyone to reflect on the depths that humanity can sink to, but also the ways in which individuals and communities resisted that darkness to be the light before, during and after the genocide.
Holocaust Memorial Day is also a day for us to recognise and remember other atrocities that have taken place since that time, including in Rwanda, Bosnia, Cambodia and, most recently, the genocide of Yazidis by the evil that is known as ISIS. In the summer of 2014, as ISIS rampaged and rolled into Sinjar, the international community was still asleep and the Yazidis defenceless. ISIS perpetrated the unthinkable. Thousands of boys and men were slaughtered, while women and girls were enslaved and raped, with hundreds of thousands put on display, all because they believed in something different. Another genocide happened on our watch.
Thousands of Yazidis still languish in camps with the hope of returning home one day. Six years later, with ISIS defeated militarily and global recognition of ISIS’s atrocities accepted, efforts have failed to see Yazidis return in large numbers. Recognition of the genocide of Yazidis has not ended their pain and suffering. Thousands are still unable to return home and feel safer in the camps in which they live. They live in fear of ISIS resurging and constant Turkish airstrikes. What Yazidis want is accountability, justice and the reunification of families. Thousands of children and women are still missing, either enslaved or murdered.
Justice and peace go hand in hand, but bringing to justice those who committed these evil acts will dissuade future perpetrators while also breaking the cycle of violence by demonstrating that justice systems can work. The crisis for Yazidis is not over. Justice means more than perpetrators being tried for terrorism against the Iraqi state; it means, where possible, convicting ISIS members for crimes committed against Yazidis, for torture, kidnapping, enslavement, rape and murder. The crisis is not over if human rights of the Yazidis in Iraq are not respected in law and policy and by all members of society. Yazidis need more than remembrance—
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
For many of us, as we contemplate the inhumanity, brutality and sheer scale of the holocaust, one uncomfortable question sits in our minds: how could ordinary people like ourselves collude with, acquiesce in, or support a regime that behaved in such a barbaric way and, perhaps even more uncomfortably, do the factors exist in our contemporary world that could allow it to happen again.
In national socialism, nationalism was the dominant partner in the marriage. National socialism regarded itself as a seismic political shift, which recognised a new and glorious image of humanity. Yet this world view was accompanied and counterbalanced by a systematic, ideological dehumanisation of other groups of people: those who oppose the regime, political activists, Gypsies, the disabled, homosexuals, Christians, religious objectors and, of course, the Jews.
Incrementally, but steadily over time, national socialist propaganda dripped poison into German society. The distortion and then the strangulation of democracy, the suppression of the press and the Church brought about this position inch by inch and step by step. Yet from Cambodia to Srebrenica to Syria, the horrors of extreme nationalism continue to ricochet through our recent history. Today’s attempts at ethnic cleansing, including China’s treatment of the Uyghurs, are part of this terrible continuum.
The basic template of extreme nationalism, a deeply distorted sense of identity and self-worth combined with the exaggeration of perceived slights and the identification of a suitable scapegoat, is still in play. Across the world, many of these stereotypical ideas are being played out again with varying degrees of sophistication and brutality. The dehumanising of opponents, internally and externally, is a timeless theme in the book of extreme nationalism. It is the beast that stalks its prey of plurality, decency and civility. Decades separate us now from the holocaust, but human behaviour still holds flaws and dangers. We must confront dangerous ideologies whenever and wherever they take root. Today of all days, we remember that we have been warned.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
May I just gently remind those who are participating virtually to keep a close eye on the clock? I do not want to have to cut people off, but we have a large number of colleagues who want to contribute to this debate.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) [V]
Let me add my thanks to everybody who has helped to sponsor and organise this debate. I, too, pay tribute to the Holocaust Educational Trust and the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust for helping to ensure that the debate is so well organised and so well informed. Seventy-six years on, we still do not look out on a world where we have banished genocide. We cannot yet look out on a world where we have banished antisemitism. Until that moment comes, we need debates like this to remember with contrition and humility, as well as determination, how much further we still have to go.
I want to offer two lessons today that I have reflected on in the run-up to this important day. One is a lesson not from Britain but from Denmark: it is the story of the Danish resistance. Those of us have been to Yad Vashem will know that in the Avenue of the Righteous there is only one memorial to an entire national movement, and that is the memorial to the Danish resistance. This movement came together in 1940 after Hitler invaded Denmark. Together, it organised the extraordinary evacuation of 7,200 Jews, along with 700 of their relatives, in October 1943 after Hitler had given the order to arrest the Jews, with extermination in mind.
This was an exercise in good people coming together—people like Sven Teisen, a member of the Danish resistance, who lost his life in the course of 1943, and Oliver Sandberg, who gave over their house next to the Øresund, over which Jews were ferried to safety in Sweden. Sven Teisen was the uncle that I never knew. Oliver Sandberg was his cousin. They were among thousands of ordinary Danes who came together inspired by one simple idea: that ordinary people can make a difference in standing up to hate.
I am so grateful that our schools are now teaching this lesson to our children. They are schools like Rockwood Academy in Alum Rock my constituency. This is a gold standard Holocaust Educational Trust school that has brought alive the testimony of Mady Gerrard. It has named its new building after Mady, and its lights now shine up like a light in the darkness to help light up the January skies here in Birmingham. I want our region to become a region of sanctuary for refugees in the years to come.
I want us to listen to the lessons of Sofia Darr, the headteacher, who I heard from this morning. She said that she has just seen the most extraordinary emotional journey of her children. She wants us to reflect on how we help them to connect at a human level, and on how we recognise their pledges by bringing them together and putting them on a national stage, giving our young people, through their leadership, the chance to genuinely spark a movement for change against hate.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con) [V]
It is an honour to contribute to such a powerful debate with heartfelt contributions from colleagues across the House.
Today, as we reflect on Holocaust Memorial Day, I want to share the powerful words of the holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel:
“I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men or women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must—at that moment—become the centre of the universe.”
Elie’s words keep me focused on ensuring that I do all I can, as an MP, both to share the horrors of the holocaust and ensure that history does not repeat itself.
The theme for Holocaust Memorial Day is “Be the light in the darkness”, encouraging everyone to reflect on the depths that humanity can sink to, but also reminding us that we can all resist that darkness to be the light before, during and after genocide. I do not think there has been a call to action so powerful from the Holocaust Memorial Trust or the Board of Deputies of British Jews. So much focus this year has been on the plight of the Uyghurs, especially last night as they honoured as their guest speaker Rahima Mahmut, who has truly been the light in the darkness for the Uyghurs.
Most recently, the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Marie van der Zyl, wrote to the Prime Minister. I believe her words should be shared with all MPs:
“I know you understand that, as a community, we are always extremely hesitant to consider comparisons with the Holocaust…In my letter, I noted the similarities between what is ‘alleged to be happening in the People’s Republic of China today and what happened in Nazi Germany 75 years ago… Today we stand at another of these crucial junctures, and it is time to act to protect the Uyghurs.”
I hope that colleagues will join the Board of Deputies and the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust in supporting the genocide amendment. Let us put our words, “Never again”, into action.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) [V]
Before entering this place, I was fortunate enough to visit the death camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau on a number of occasions—fortunate in the sense that I was able to see at first hand a place that had once, in our recent history, inflicted so much suffering, destruction and, ultimately, death; a place where human beings routinely slaughtered fellow human beings on account of nothing more than their ethnicity, religious beliefs, disabilities, sexual orientation and political activity; a place that is in every sense a living, breathing monument to all who were killed during the holocaust, a fixed reminder of the horrors of genocide and a warning to any society that wishes to dangerously flirt with intolerance and prejudice.
I am proud to represent such a diverse constituency in Liverpool, Wavertree. I know that many of my Jewish constituents will have been lighting a candle yesterday, paying tribute, remembering and reflecting on the lived experiences of the 6 million Jews and those who survived, as well as the other persecuted peoples who perished in those camps at the hands of the Nazis. It is on candles that I want to briefly focus. How poignant and moving was the “Thought for the Day” from the Chief Rabbi yesterday, in which he said:
“Even a tiny flame can conquer darkness.”
The symbol of Holocaust Memorial Day is, of course, that candle. No matter how small the flame—no matter how inconsequential our behaviours may seem at times—we can be that light in the darkness. It is undoubtedly a powerful call to responsibility in which we all must play a small part as citizens.
I saw that at first hand and was able to capture it in the freezing eastern European snow, as we placed a small row of candles on the remnants and decaying walls of Crematorium IV at the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp during my visits. It was not the freezing cold temperatures that gave me chills as I stood there. It was, in fact, upon learning the story of 7 October 1944. For months, young Jewish women were smuggling small amounts of gunpowder from the munitions factory within the Auschwitz complex to the men and women of the camp’s resistance movement. A young Jewish woman, Roza Robota, passed it to her co-conspirators in the Sonderkommando, the special squad of prisoners forced to work in the camp’s crematoria.
While the uprising was ultimately unsuccessful and a brutal crackdown ensued, Crematorium IV was destroyed and never used again. Roza was hanged in January 1945 alongside three other women comrades. Defiant until the last, their heroic stand is remembered as one of the most courageous acts of Jewish women prisoners in Auschwitz-Birkenau. Their resilience and unrelenting insubordination in the face of adversity and death is a beacon of hope to us all. In that place, in that moment, they were that flame—that candle—and it is our duty, many decades later, to continue telling their stories.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I was born four years after the genocide of the holocaust ended, but I have been a witness to genocide. In 1992-93, I was the British UN commander in Bosnia, and the whole country was an example of genocide. I do not have much time, so let me concentrate on one incident on one day: the Ahmic house in Ahmići, on 22 April 1993.
I approached the house to discover that a man and a boy had been shot down in their doorway and their bodies burnt. The boy’s naked body had his fist up in the air. It was horrific. My soldiers told me to look round the back. I went into the cellar, and I could not believe what I saw. The first thing I got was, frankly, the smell; it was awful. Then my eyes focused on a mass of red and black, and I realised it was bodies. One body—I think it was an adult—was arched so far backwards, probably in agony, that it must have broken the back. There were four children there, too, but here is the point: as I looked at the head of what I thought was a woman, her eyes were still there. I was horrified. We went outside. We leant against the wall. My soldiers and I could say nothing. Later, as he was shovelling up the remains of people, a soldier turned to me and said, “Sir, this is Europe in 1993, not Europe in 1943.” We buried over 104 people—I think it was 104 people—in a mass grave nearby. It has affected me deeply. I may not look it, but deep down, I am deeply affected by the genocide I witnessed.
My mother went to Belsen at the end of the war. She was an officer of the Special Operations Executive. She never told me about it until I was stationed nearby. I said to her then, “Why, mum, have you not told me about this?” She said, “Robert, I was ashamed.” I said, “Mum, why were you ashamed? You were in uniform. You were fighting the Nazis. You had learned to parachute. You had learned to fight them.” She said, “I was ashamed, Robert, because this genocide occurred in my generation.”
Genocides have occurred since 1945. As I have said, I was a witness to one; it is burned into me. The purpose of this debate is to make sure that we try to stop it happening again.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) [V]
I pay tribute to everyone who has spoken in this debate so far, not least the last very moving speech by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). I would like to start my contribution by reading a couple of lines from the memoir of Gerda Weissmann Klein, who was 18 when she was sent to the first of several concentration camps, Bolkenhain. She wrote:
“Ilse, a childhood friend of mine, once found a raspberry in the concentration camp and carried it in her pocket all day to present to me that night on a leaf. Imagine a world in which your entire possession is one raspberry and you give it to your friend.”
For me, those words simultaneously drive home the holocaust horrors, while exemplifying the compassion and generosity that existed even in those most awful conditions. It shows us that Ilse Kleinzahler, a young woman in a concentration camp with nothing in the world but a raspberry, could be the light in that unimaginable darkness.
Years later, Gerda said:
“I like to remember some of the things in camp, how people helped each other. I want to tell young people about that—that there was friendship and love and caring.”
Like so many accounts from holocaust survivors, the story has a heartbreaking coda. Ilse died on a death march a week before Gerda was liberated. They were holding each other’s hand. We must never forget the atrocities of the holocaust—never—how Ilse and 6 million Jews were murdered by the Nazis and the inhumanity inflicted on humans by humans. We must remember, so that we try harder to stop it happening again, as it has, tragically, in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and elsewhere, as other colleagues have said. We must be vigilant in our opposition to hatred, discrimination and oppression and vigilant in defence of peace, respect and human rights.
Let us also remember, as Mrs Klein does, the friendship, the love and the caring that existed even amidst all that horror. If those qualities can exist in a Nazi concentration camp in the middle of the holocaust, they can certainly exist now. No matter how difficult things are, how big our challenges may be or how dark the days might seem, we can still find those most human of qualities. We can still care for each other, we can still love each other and we can still be the light in the darkness.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
We come together today to commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day, which is held on the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. I visited Auschwitz-Birkenau more than 10 years ago, but it is forever seared on my memory. Six million men, women and children were murdered for no reason other than their faith. This was murder on an industrial scale, with thousands of people responsible for the holocaust. We can never forget what happened, but those who have long memories can forgive those people who perpetrated this crime against humanity.
I pay tribute to the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and to the Holocaust Educational Trust, so ably led by Karen Pollock, which do so much good work to educate not only us but children and young people about the horrors of the holocaust. Sadly, the number of holocaust survivors is dwindling each year, but I pay tribute to those who go into schools, colleges and other meetings around the United Kingdom to bear personal testimony to what happened to them when they were growing up. The reality is that, without their personal testimony, it is hard to contemplate how 6 million people could have been murdered in such a way. Auschwitz-Birkenau was not the only camp. It was responsible for 1.4 million people being murdered, but we have to remember that the other death camps were equally responsible.
We must have the Holocaust memorial and education centre built alongside Parliament in Victoria Tower gardens as a permanent reminder of the horrors that can be inflicted by evil people, so that when people visit the cradle of democracy that is Parliament, they can also visit the memorial centre on a free-of-charge basis, and young people can be suitably educated. I am the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for the holocaust memorial, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government will be able to update the House on any further news and progress when he sums up the debate. Equally, we must always remember that this happened in our names, and we must ensure that we as Members who cannot sign the book of remembrance this year can sign the early-day motion that I have been privileged to sponsor. Early-day motion 1305 has attracted 91 signatures so far from hon. and right hon. Members from across the House, and I urge other colleagues to do the same. Let us all come together and be the light in the darkness.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Today’s Holocaust Memorial Day theme of “Be the light in the darkness” is really important. We are going through a form of darkness ourselves with the coronavirus epidemic, and 1,500 out of every 100,000 people in this country have died due to coronavirus. For European Jews, the death rate was two thirds of our whole community in the second world war. The fear that Jews had every day in the period from when Hitler took power was unbelievable, and we need to reflect on that today. It did not start with extermination. It started with acts of antisemitism, the forced shaving of beards, the forced labour camps, the removal of religious rights and the detention of children.
I can also say all those things that I have just said about the Uyghur Muslims in China. They are going through a form of persecution, which we need to stand up to today on Holocaust Memorial Day. I praise the Board of Deputies of British Jews for its work on this. We also have other genocides in the world. I am the Chair of the all-party parliamentary group on West Papua, where more than half a million people have been killed. The universities of Sydney and Yale have classified this as genocide, and it is important not just to reflect on history but to remember those people who are being oppressed and having genocidal action taken against them today. We have a duty to speak out about what is happening now, as well as reflecting on what happened to my own ancestors—people I will never get to meet and whose children were never born. That is something that has fallen not just on the Jewish community, but on other communities around the world. It is not just about communities of race or religion. We need to remember other minority communities, such as the trans community, who are going through terrible forms of persecution and oppression around the world, and who are grossly misunderstood in many places. We also need to send our solidarity to communities of identity and others today on Holocaust Memorial Day. This is not a day just about Jews and the holocaust; this is a day about all those facing oppression, genocide and persecution. As a Jewish person, I send my solidarity and my support to all those facing persecution. We need to be able to shine a light in the darkness. It is said that light is the best disinfectant. Today, we can shine that light and start to disinfect the problems and issues of the world.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) [V]
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), and a privilege to be able to speak today to recognise and commemorate all those who were lost in the holocaust. Across the country, there have been national commemorations. I am sure that every Member of Parliament has at least attended private commemoration services online, too. Yesterday, I attended the Solihull Mayor’s Holocaust Memorial Day commemoration and watched the livestream of the very moving UK commemorative ceremony for Holocaust Memorial Day. Even during a pandemic, the determination of the British people to hold virtual commemorations online across the country is heartening and demonstrates our resolve to remember the horrors of the holocaust.
I am part of a generation fortunate enough to learn from the lived experiences of many people. However, I agree with the Prince of Wales, who said that the important truth is that we are increasingly losing living voices to educate us. As well as bearing witness to what happened, by listening to these stories and by sharing them we ensure that our future generations will have the courage to speak up in the face of evil. That is why I am a big believer in the importance of programmes such as the Lessons from Auschwitz project, the Ambassador programme and the Outreach programme. Those programmes are important not just because they teach us about the false doctrines of the past; they warn us against malevolent ideologies in the present and the future.
The relevance of that in today’s United Kingdom cannot be understated. The Communities Security Trust recorded over 1,800 antisemitic incidents in 2019, a 7% rise on the record of 2018. In 2018, cases of antisemitic incidents rose by 16% from 2017, the highest yearly total since records began in 1984. Clearly, there is more we must do to tackle the ideology of blind hate. We cannot allow ourselves to forget the tragic horror and torment that the Jewish people faced during the holocaust. We must not let ourselves forget the repulsive hatred that led to their suffering. It is a sad fact that the holocaust was not the final genocide that our world has seen. Rwanda, Cambodia, Darfur and Srebrenica, to name a few, are scars on human history. They remind us that we have no room for complacency.
Debates like this cannot just be empty words. When we speak in the House on these issues, it serves two purposes. First, it is a warning to those who commit or intend to commit atrocities, that we and the rest of the international community will stand in their way. Secondly, it is to inspire. As we remember the courage of those who came before, we seek to inspire those listening today to have the courage to stand up for the oppressed and persecuted. We will never forget the horrors of the holocaust and we will continue to call out antisemitism wherever we find it. This is a duty on all of us. We must be the light in the darkness.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a privilege to be able to speak in such an important debate and I would like to echo the contributions of other hon. Members today. I think we can all agree that this is an issue that unites us across the House.
Holocaust Memorial Day allows us a moment to remember the 6 million Jewish victims of Nazi holocaust and the other victims of Hitler’s murderous regime. It also reminds us that genocide did not end in 1945. It allows us to reflect on our human experience and the choices we make. We know that darkness exists within all of us, but we can choose to be the light. We can choose not to be drawn down into a dark place of hatred and discrimination that only leads to one place.
Three weeks after I was elected as the MP for Vauxhall, anti-Islamic slogans were painted on the walls of a mosque in my constituency. That hideous hate crime was rightly, and immediately, condemned by everybody in a position of local authority. It came three days after antisemitic graffiti was sprayed across a synagogue and shops in north London, during the Jewish festival of Hanukkah.
Genocide does not just happen. People do not wake up one day and decide that they hate each other. It is a slow process that builds over time. We know from history that latent hatred can lead to genocide when it is left to fester and then exploited by those in positions of power. We cannot pick and choose which forms of racism or hatred we do not like. We must all be united in condemning all forms of racism and hatred, whenever and wherever it happens.
It is our duty as public servants to ensure that those in power never knowingly sow division through the language they use or the actions they take, or choose not to take. We must always be vigilant to see the warning signs, and we must call out racism, discrimination and hatred whenever we see it. The power of Holocaust Memorial Day is that it reminds us never to forget.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con) [V]
It has been 76 years since the world understood the full scale and horror of what happened, as the Nazis and their collaborators tried to eliminate the Jews of Europe. Every time I have returned from Auschwitz-Birkenau, I struggle to comprehend the enormity and sheer scale of the holocaust. That is why that genocide stands out in history, and why we can, and should, never forget it happened. Each time I visited, a different element of the camps affected me. Seeing the mass of hair behind the glass cabinets hits particularly hard; seeing children’s clothes is simply incomprehensible.
When we really understand that this was a mass, industrialised killing across borders, and across Europe, to wipe out an entire race, the holocaust takes on an even more sinister meaning. It was organised. It involved complex logistics to move people around, and to murder as many Jews as possible after the Nazis had taken from them everything they could. Some—those who counted themselves lucky—were given jobs, but others did not even get that chance.
In many ways the easiest way to understand what happened in the holocaust is by hearing the testimony of those who witnessed it. Otherwise, the scale is too difficult to comprehend. The number of victims is too large, and the number of perpetrators that it took to get there is simply terrifying. I watched Tuesday’s Survivor webcast with Eve Kugler BEM, which was superbly organised by the Holocaust Educational Trust. It was fantastic to see Q3 Academy in West Bromwich East taking part. Harpej, a year-nine pupil at Q3 Academy, said it was important to hear Eve speak “because for them it is so personal, and they can tell their story with emotion and we can see how bad it truly was.”
Having spent time with survivors, their lust for life never ceases to amaze me, and this past year they have been even more inspiring. We all know that the future of holocaust education will be challenging, as those first-hand witnesses sadly become fewer. While this year has been testing, covid-19 has not stopped survivors in their mission to educate. I pay a special tribute to the incredible survivors who have taken to Zoom to continue their incredible work over the past year, and to the work of Karen Pollock and the Holocaust Educational Trust.
Holocaust survivor, Lily Ebert has managed to reach millions of people, and she continues to share her testimony, thanks to the help of her great-grandson, Dov, who has taken it upon himself to share his great-grandmother’s story through social media. The reach has been enormous, and Dov is part of an important generation of people who are all witness to the truth, as a result of hearing the testimony from survivors themselves. I have never been in any doubt that the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust and of the survivors is invaluable, as, sadly, antisemitism still exists and we find it all too often. This year survivors have really been the light in the darkness. They are a community of people who have been through the most unimaginable suffering, but their positivity and relentless resolve to make sure that this never happens again is something to behold. We all have a duty to be the light in the darkness.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) [V]
Every year across the country, we come together to mark Holocaust Memorial Day: to remember those who have been lost; to hear the retelling of stories from those who have survived; and to reflect on what we can do to stop such atrocities taking place again. I thank the Holocaust Educational Trust and the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust for the fantastic resources and ceremonies they have provided to ensure that the memorial is still happening safely in 2021.
Thinking of this year’s theme—“Be the light in the darkness”—I think of those glimmers and moments of hope brought about through unimaginable bravery and courage. I came across Madeline Deutsch’s story in the US Holocaust Memorial Museum collection, where she shared the sacrifices that her mother made to keep her safe during their time in the camps in the second world war. Madeline spoke of how her mother would give up her scraps of bread in order to keep her child safe and fed through the hardest and most trying of circumstances. Although we are aware of how the Nazi regime targeted their evil at all Jews, along with those who did not fit the idea of Aryan, today I want to talk about the treatment and experience of women in camps.
Ravensbrück was the largest Nazi concentration camp established for women. Over 120,000 women had been imprisoned in Ravensbrück by the time it was liberated in 1945. Those women faced not just the harsh reality of the camps; they could also face forced medical experiments and sterilisations, be made to work in makeshift brothels or were murdered. In what must have been the very darkest of times, we still hear stories such as the sacrifices that Madeline Deutsch’s mother made to keep her child fed and safe.
Although we know that identity-based persecution often affects all those who fall into the targeted groups, women’s experiences during genocide can be unique. Today we remember those women who lost their lives or experienced persecution not only in the holocaust, but in the genocides that have sadly followed since. Let us remember the light and hope shown by men and women; let us remember the sacrifices made by fathers and mothers; and let these stories show us that in the very darkest of times, there can always be light.
Lee Anderson
As I sat in his kitchen, I noticed a picture of a young man in a British Army uniform. I asked him who it was and he said, “That’s me, aged 18, during world war two.” I asked him what he did during the war, and he told me that he was with the British Army and helped to liberate Bergen-Belsen. He told me that he could not believe the horrors that he saw, the smell, and what human beings could do to their fellow man. He said that he cried and he cried and he cried, and since that day he had never cried again, and he finished by saying, “I left all my tears at the gates of Belsen.” I will never forget those words.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) [V]
I want to start by paying tribute to Olivia Marks-Woldman and the staff at the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, and Karen Pollock and the good people at the Holocaust Educational Trust, for their tireless work to educate us all. “Be the light in the darkness”—what an amazingly powerful theme. It is a reminder that the anti-fascist values of those who stood against the Nazis are so important today.
I have always been awed by the Warsaw ghetto uprising—a few streets that held out against overwhelming Nazi force for 28 days—and today I am remembering Tosia Altman. She was just 20 years old when she joined comrades in Lithuania, but she was the first to go back into Nazi occupied areas—such courage at such a young age. She spent the next few years, at enormous risk, travelling in and out of Jewish ghettos in occupied Europe. She spread information about the horrors that were being perpetrated. She also spread hope. She organised the resistance.
Tosia’s incredible resilience in the darkest of times helped to bring about the Warsaw ghetto uprising. She helped people to know that state-enforced hatred could be challenged. She smuggled weapons into the ghetto. She strategised. Over and over again, she went into burning buildings to rescue others. She saved lives and, tragically, burns finally killed her. After being handed over to the Germans by collaborators in the Polish police, she died on 26 May 1943 after two days of untreated, unmitigated agony. She was the first from her movement to return to the greater danger in Poland, and she was the last of them to fall. Tosia Altman, a light in the darkness—remember her name.
We know in this place that racial hatred and genocidal violence is still with us in this world. That is why I was so disappointed that last week, despite the pleas of holocaust survivors, the Government refused to change the law to prevent trade deals with countries committing genocide. We must have clear pathways to identify and prevent another genocide. “Never again” must not be a platitude. It is an instruction. We must be the light in the darkness.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) [V]
It is humbling to join colleagues on both sides of the House and my constituents to commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day. For Jews around the world, including here in the UK, the holocaust is not just a terrible memory; it is something they live with on a permanent basis—the photographs of family members they never got to meet, and the knowledge that the thriving Jewish communities across Europe were all but annihilated. Today, 76 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, the world’s Jewish population still has not returned to what it was prior to the second world war.
One memory was brought into sharp focus this year, in a time of pandemic: the numbers tattooed on the arms of parent and grandparents. I am sure we have all seen the powerful images of holocaust survivors receiving the coronavirus vaccine with those tattoos still on their arms today. This year’s theme is “Be the light in the darkness”, encouraging us all to reflect on the depths that humanity can sink to and the ways that we can resist darkness and be the light for others. We are fortunate still to have holocaust survivors with us today, and I urge everybody to interact with the Holocaust Educational Trust and Holocaust Memorial Day Trust to hear from these inspiring individuals.
We have heard a lot about the words “Never again”, which first appeared on handmade signs hung up by prisoners at the Buchenwald concentration camp following their liberation in 1945. Those words have become a symbol of the world’s resolve to prevent such crimes against humanity from ever reoccurring. Tragically, however, genocides and mass killings were not relegated to history in 1945 but have claimed the lives of an estimated 80 million people since, in places such as Bosnia, Cambodia, Darfur and Rwanda, to name but a few, and today we hear of the persecution of Christians, Yazidis, Rohingyas and Uyghurs. That is why we must continue to be a voice for the persecuted around the world today and to learn from the horrors of the past so that we can be the light.
I would like to finish with these words of Elie Wiesel, the holocaust survivor and Nobel laureate:
“Let us remember those who suffered and perished then, those who fell with weapons in their hands and those who died with prayers on their lips, all those who have no tombs: our heart remains their cemetery.”
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) [V]
I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in today’s debate, as we join across the House and with the Holocaust Educational Trust to commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day. Today is an opportunity for us to pause and remember the millions of people who were murdered or whose lives were changed beyond recognition during the holocaust and in more recent genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur. It is simply staggering to think that the horrors of genocide have occurred across the world during the past two decades, including on the edge of Europe, and even today we see the persecution of Rohingyas, Uyghurs and others across the planet.
As many will know, the date of Holocaust Memorial Day, 27 January, marks the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, the largest Nazi death camp. Since Holocaust Memorial Day began in the UK in 2001, it has been marked on the same date each year with a different theme. The 2021 theme is: “Be the light in the darkness.” As the trust has said, we can all be the light in the darkness, shining light where people are persecuted and holding those responsible to account. Indeed, it is our common responsibility to be the light and to recognise that our lights are more powerful when we work together.
Words are important too. All of us, through our words, have the power to help set the tone in our family, our workplace and our community. Words can really make a difference. The words that we see and hear all around us today, in newspapers, on social media, online and in conversations, and the words that we all choose to use, have an impact on us and those around us.
On Holocaust Memorial Day, we can honour the survivors of these regimes, but we must also continually challenge ourselves to use the lessons of their experience to inform our lives today. We seek to learn the lessons of the past, but we must also recognise that genocide does not just take place on its own; it is a process that can begin if discrimination, racism and hatred are not checked, challenged and prevented.
We are fortunate here in the UK not to be at risk of genocide. However, discrimination has not ended, and neither has the use of the language of hatred or exclusion. There is still much to do to create a safer future. It might be easier for some to ignore massacres that are happening halfway around the planet, but perhaps it is not so easy to turn a blind eye to events happening in our own backyard. In 2014, antisemitic incidents in the UK reached their highest ever level, double the number of the year before. This continues to be a stain on our society today. Anti-Muslim hate tripled in London after the Paris attacks. Following the EU referendum, hate crime aimed at EU nationals spiked across the UK.
Holocaust Memorial Day is still hugely relevant and important. The mistakes and crimes of the past can never be repeated. Commemorating as we are today is a real demonstration of how the lessons of the past can inform our lives today, and ensure that everyone works together to create a safer, better future.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
Holocaust Memorial Day demands all to reflect on the hellish events of the genocide perpetrated by Nazi Germany and its collaborators. This year’s memorial focuses on being the light in the darkness, encouraging everyone to fight persecution, oppression and injustice everywhere. Despite the difficulties of the past year, it was reassuring yesterday to see people and communities come together in a new way for Holocaust Memorial Day and to reflect.
In the years since the holocaust, we have come to acknowledge that it must never again be allowed to happen. But words alone are hollow; action is required to give them effect. Since the holocaust, we continue to witness genocide, including the Anfal, Rwandan, Bosnian, Rohingya and Yazidi genocides, and currently the genocide of the Uyghurs by the Chinese Communist party.
Tragically, antisemitism continues to rear its monstrous head. In December 2018, a survey found that 89% of Jews living in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden and the UK felt that antisemitism had increased in their country over the previous decade.
The United Kingdom must be the light in the darkness now, and provide an example by standing up to those currently committing genocide. Limiting trade and commerce unilaterally with genocidal regimes is one step that the UK must take in leading the world against genocide. On this day, and every day, let us remember the words of holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, who said:
“I swore never to be silent whenever wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must—at that moment—become the center of the universe.”
Our world’s shameful past, and its present, makes it clear that human decency is fragile, and admonishes us that if we treasure humanity, we cannot take our values for granted. To safeguard humanity, we must never forget the evils deliberately inflicted upon the Jewish people throughout the holocaust, and we must appreciate that, as I speak today, similar filthy crimes are being perpetrated by a totalitarian state. We cannot be complicit or deliberately turn a blind eye to genocide out of convenience or lust for blood-stained trade.
Heartbreakingly, this House is called on not only to do everything we can to prevent genocide in the future, but to stop the evil practice that continues today.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
It is an honour not only to speak in such an important debate, but to have joined the very moving Holocaust Memorial Day Trust event yesterday evening.
We should never underestimate how important it is that we take this time every year to remember the horrific events that have occurred in the past; to remember the 6 million Jews murdered during the holocaust, as well as the other millions who were murdered under Nazi rule, and to remember those who were killed in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur and in other horrific genocides. Many would have heard the quote:
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
This year’s theme for Holocaust Memorial Day, “Be the light in the darkness” could not be more fitting, because we see not only a sustained rise in far right fascism across the world, but the pending economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic. We all know too well the foundations of fascist movements and how they exploit issues in society to perpetuate these ideals. In these dark times, we talk a lot about going back to normal, but we must remember that our normal was not good enough. Our normal saw a rise in antisemitism and all forms of racism over the past few years.
Today, I want to echo the words of 94-year-old holocaust survivor, Anita Lasker-Wallfisch, who recently said that she hopes the coronavirus pandemic will wake people up to have better attitudes towards each other. The atrocities of the holocaust and other past events teaches us that we must challenge the prejudice and the language of hatred that we see on a daily basis. We must condemn it when it marches across our streets. We must expose it when it tries to rear its head on all platforms—online platforms in particular at the moment. We must stamp it out when it seeks political legitimacy.
We have all seen recently in the US just what happens when hatred and discrimination are left unchecked and when prejudice is reinforced, empowered and given power. It threatens the very fabric of democracy, so it is not enough for us just not to be racist ourselves. To challenge the scourge of racism across our societies, we must all make the decision to be anti-racist, make conscious efforts to do better and to stand up for others more. The responsibility is with us to be the light in the darkness and to learn from the atrocities of the past to ensure that these horrors never happen again.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) [V]
This debate is an important opportunity to reflect on and remember the murder of millions of Jews, Roma and Sinti, political prisoners, the disabled, those with mental illness, and those who were gay who were persecuted by the barbaric Nazi regime. Today, we also remember the victims of genocide in Bosnia, Rwanda, Cambodia and Darfur and those who, sadly, are still persecuted in parts of the world simply because of who they are.
I have had the privilege of attending events this week to commemorate 76 years since the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau and 20 years since the first Holocaust Memorial Day. On Tuesday, I attended a virtual memorial service hosted by the embassy of Israel and the Foreign Office, and I would like to place on the record my thanks to the Foreign Secretary, the ambassador and Lord Pickles for their moving contributions. In the exceptional circumstances that we face this year, I was grateful to have the chance to listen, learn and reflect on how we must continue to shine a bright light in the darkness.
In 2019, thanks to the Conservative Friends of Israel, I had the privilege of visiting Israel, as recorded in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, along with other Members of this House. For me, the most moving part of the trip was the visit to the Holocaust History Museum in Yad Vashem where we laid a wreath in memory of the victims of the holocaust. Seeing the personal stories of murder and destruction that forever changed human history moved us all, reinforcing for me the importance of rejecting hatred and working to root out antisemitism. However, the sad truth is that antisemitism persists in the UK and across the world. Indeed, the Community Security Trust has reported that online antisemitism in the UK is at its highest level ever, with more than 780 incidents recorded in the first six months of 2020 alone.
Antisemitism is simply racism, and like all racism it has no place in our society. Racism is born out of ignorance, and ignorance can be overcome with education and understanding. The planned education centre and dedicated holocaust memorial in Victoria Tower gardens will serve as a beacon to future generations to reject hatred, prejudice and denial. Today, we remember all those who have been murdered as a result of religious and political intolerance, and those who have been persecuted in the hope of a kinder, more tolerant society. It is by coming together as nation—as a community—that we can combat hatred and prejudice globally. We must be the light in the darkness.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
When I was growing up—when I was first married—one of my most fun relations was my father’s first cousin, Joan Priday. Joan was an intelligent woman with a wonderful laugh that I remember today. She was bright, full of fun and had such a sense of humour, and I think I would describe her as being a feminist before her time. She has been dead a long time.
One thing that I did not know about Joan until I was slightly older was that, like the friend of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), she had been one of the first females into Belsen when it was liberated in early 1945. Like so many people who had that dreadful experience, she did not like to talk about it, but she did tell me that they could not feed the freed prisoners too much to start with because the shock of a full meal could kill them. She talked about the smell which, as the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) mentioned, is something that people who have experienced it never forget. She caught a disease at the camp that made her very sick indeed.
Talking today to her son, John Priday, I discovered that she was troubled by the most awful nightmares for much of the rest of her life. She was awarded the MBE for what she did—she was with the Red Cross, and when the liberating soldiers moved on, of course, the Red Cross had to stay at Belsen. She is dead and gone, and I mourn her, yet by a very strange coincidence, she died on 27 January—Holocaust Memorial Day.
As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I live in the highlands—I live on the shores of the Dornoch firth in a gentle little town called Tain. That would have seemed then, and indeed seems today, very far from the horrors that were going on in Europe during the second world war, yet what my cousin Joan Priday said to me has been a useful reminder to me as an individual of how, to echo every other Member speaking today, we must never let this dark heart of evil ever walk the world again. We must do everything in our human power to prevent it.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) [V]
I gave my maiden speech in the House in the corresponding debate last year, and I speak from a constituency where my predecessor has worked tirelessly on this issue and is now our antisemitism tsar. I am truly humbled to be able to speak in this debate on Holocaust Memorial Day—a day that is rightfully being marked not just here in Parliament but throughout the country and beyond.
We should never forget the atrocities perpetrated against the Jewish people and the many other groups that were the target of Nazi racism. That is why I am proud to represent a county where the National Holocaust Centre is located. The memorial centre is dedicated to the teaching of humanity and remembrance so that we as a society can work together for a better world in which tolerance of people’s ideas, culture and beliefs is the foundation for a modern society.
Holocaust Memorial Day offers an opportunity to reflect on the tragic events of the genocide perpetrated by Nazi Germany on the Jewish community. It is often said that we shall never again allow this, the most grievous crime against humanity, to be carried out again. Holocaust Memorial Day offers the opportunity to reaffirm this pledge to defend human rights. One such way we can help tackle antisemitism is by adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism. In December 2016, the UK became the first country in Europe to adopt formally this definition, which, while not legally binding, is regarded as a valuable tool, enabling criminal justice agencies to understand how this form of bigotry manifests itself in the 21st century. In 2019, the Communities Secretary wrote to all councils and universities encouraging them to adopt the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, and I would encourage others that have not yet taken this pledge to do so.
We must remember acts of genocide from all over the world. The cases from Rwanda and what happened at Srebrenica, along with the current disturbing world events, are things many of us can immediately relate to and remember, indeed, from our own lifetimes. Today is a day not just for remembrance, but to remind us that action also needs to be taken and we must stand together.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab) [V]
It is a privilege to take part in such an important debate. I want to begin by particularly congratulating the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust on the brilliant job it has done in marking Holocaust Memorial Day in these most extraordinary circumstances, as well as communities up and down the country that, like mine in the London Borough of Redbridge, have organised digital events—virtual events—so that people could still come together, albeit in a way that was different from usual.
The last time I went to Auschwitz-Birkenau was just prior to the 2019 general election, with the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and it was, as visits to Auschwitz always are, deeply moving and deeply unnerving. In particular, going with groups of children from my own constituency, through the Holocaust Educational Trust, was a particularly powerful experience because of the responsibility that we bear, as current and future generations, to bear witness to the testimony of holocaust survivors, who are, sadly, fewer in number with every passing year.
One of the things that I find most troubling about the lessons of the holocaust—the lessons from Auschwitz and, in particular, from visiting Auschwitz just before the 2019 general election—is that it is very easy to look at the holocaust and the Nazi persecution and to ask, with confusion, bewilderment and a total lack of understanding in many respects, how it was that these uniquely evil people, the Nazis, could perpetrate such appalling acts of genocide, but the uncomfortable truth is that the Nazis were not extraordinary people. They were ordinary people capable of acts of extraordinary evil. That is the fundamental truth of the holocaust, and why we must always guard against antisemitism in our society.
It is very easy to condemn the antisemites of the world where they bear the swastika or march through the streets of Charlottesville, but it is much less comfortable confronting antisemitism among the people we know in our communities, perhaps even in our families or, indeed, in our political parties. So if the words “Never again” are really truly to mean something, being the light in the darkness is not just about our country’s responsibility on the global stage to tackle ongoing acts of genocide and atrocities such as those being perpetrated by China; it is also our everyday responsibility as citizens and Members of Parliament to tackle antisemitism under our very noses.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con) [V]
With the sheer scale of the tragedy, the unimaginable horror and the fact that it happened in Europe—on our doorstep—in the mid-20th century, the holocaust is almost impossible to comprehend. Over the 76 years since the liberation of the concentration camps and the end of the second world war, the destruction of Nazi tyranny and the genocide, we have become numb to the numbers and the facts, but we must remind ourselves over and over again. As the numbers of those who survived sadly diminish each year, it is up to us, a new generation who have heard at first hand from those survivors what happened, to remember and to pass on.
In 1933, when the Nazis first came to power in Germany, there were 9 million Jews living in Europe. By 1945, 6 million had been killed—two out of every three—not through disease or natural causes or war but through a programme of extermination, a cold, calculated effort to wipe an entire people from the face of the continent. While we remember all of that faith who, for their faith alone, were tortured and killed, we cannot on this day forget the 5 million others who did not fit into the vision of a perfect race, or who would not submit to the vicious ideology of Nazism: more than half a million Roma Gypsies; thousands of Christian priests and Ministers who refused to submit to the Nazis; political opponents; resistance fighters; the 15,000 members of the LGBT community who died having first been forced into the ignominy of wearing pink triangles so that they could be easily recognised and even further humiliated; the disabled put to death under Hitler’s cleansing programme; the black children who were forcibly sterilised. For all who suffered and died because of their faith, who they were, who they loved or what they looked like, we must remember and say “Never again.”
It is often asked why we did not do more in the 1930s in the run-up to world war two. Surely we knew what was happening, if not the scale. Maybe we did, but it was harder to know exactly what was happening on foreign shores back then—not so anymore. In this interconnected world, a world that seems closer and smaller than ever before, that argument no longer stands, so I wonder, however well meant, how hollow our words feel to the people of Rwanda, Darfur and Bosnia. I wonder, when they hear politicians in the west say “Never again” what they actually think. We knew what was happening in those countries and still we did nothing. We saw on our TV screens the death and destruction, the genocides taking place in our world and in our lifetime. We saw Bashar al-Assad use chemical weapons against children, and this House voted not to intervene. We see forced sterilisation, forced labour and prison camps in Xinjiang for the Uyghur Muslims, and the suffering of the Rohingya in Myanmar. Today, when we say “Never again” let us mean it.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) [V]
While comparisons with the holocaust should never be made lightly, the suffering of at least 200,000 North Koreans in Kim Jong-un’s prison camps, many of them prisoners of conscience, is not dissimilar from that in Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen or Stalin’s gulag. The only difference with North Korea is that the incarceration, atrocities and absolute totalitarian repression have continued there for longer—for decades.
More than 10 years ago, the UN’s first special rapporteur for human rights in North Korea described the human rights crisis there as sui generis—in a category of its own. A 2014 UN commission of inquiry chaired by the distinguished Australian judge Michael Kirby concluded that the gravity, scale and nature of human rights violations in North Korea reveal a state that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world, and designated those violations as crimes against humanity. The reality is that, in North Korea, there is no freedom whatsoever. Every single article of the universal declaration of human rights is violated every single day.
That 2014 UN report recommended that those responsible be brought to account, but those steps have not been taken, and subsequent years have seen only further crimes. In the light of that, the all-party parliamentary group on North Korea, of which I am a co-chair, launched an inquiry into human rights in that country since the UN report of 2014. Our aim is to shine a parliamentary light. We also wish to spotlight the urgent need for the UK and other states to challenge and suppress these ongoing violations in North Korea, and to work towards bringing those responsible to justice. It is welcome that Lord Ahmad, our Minister for human rights, attended the APPG recently and make clear his support for, and the active engagement of the FCDO with, our inquiry.
The voice that matters in this debate is that of the victims and survivors, to whom I pay tribute. One such is the North Korean escapee Timothy Cho, who not long ago worked as an intern in my office for a year. His hope and enthusiasm for democracy, freedom and the rule of law to be present in his home country is inspirational. We owe it to him and to the victims and remaining survivors of the holocaust and other genocides, however difficult the challenge, not to ignore human rights violations across the globe, including those in North Korea today.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) [V]
It is an honour to have the opportunity to address the House today as we commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day 2021. The theme this year is “Be the light in the darkness”. In the world of today, where injustice and persecution are par for the course in so many lands, this is a powerful, pertinent message. The animus of hatred that drove the Nazi persecution of the Jews and many other marginalised groups such as the Roma, LGBTQ and disabled people remains manifest in the world today, and all of us must be a light in the darkness that will confront that hatred and stop it in its tracks.
Even today, 76 years after the liberation of the inmates of Auschwitz-Birkenau, there are vulnerable minorities around the world who suffer identity-based persecution, discrimination and violence. From the Rohingya in Myanmar to the Uyghurs in China, millions of people across our planet are subjected to deliberate, ongoing oppression and attempts at extermination of their culture, way of life and personhood. How we respond to these horrors is a living, every-day test of whether we are the light in the darkness that the memory of the estimated 6 million Jewish people and millions of others murdered by the Nazis calls on us to be.
Across Europe, too, discrimination against and persecution of many marginalised groups continues today. We cannot be complacent about the antisemitic, anti-Muslim, anti-Traveller, homophobic and transphobic attitudes that prevail in our societies. I pay tribute to organisations such as Human Rights Watch, HOPE not hate, and Tell MAMA, which continue to document rising hatred and persecution domestically in the UK and around the world. I pay tribute to the Holocaust Educational Trust, which does excellent work in schools across the UK, including in my constituency, educating our young people about the horrors of the holocaust and other genocides. I have had the privilege of listening to the deeply moving testimony of Mala Tribich, a survivor of the holocaust who, alone with her brother Ben, was the last member of her family to have survived Nazi persecution.
In conclusion, it is impossible to overstate the importance of these personal accounts. It is paramount that we remember those dark times when the darkness was everywhere and lights were few. It is vital that they are passed on to the next generation, so that the light of memory inspires other lights, other acts of resistance to even the darkest evil. Let us all be such lights.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
For the convenience of the House, I inform everybody that the winding-up speeches will start at 19 minutes past 3, with eight minutes for each of the three Front Benchers and two minutes for Stephen to wind up further.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
It is an honour to be called to speak in this timely and poignant debate to commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day and the 76th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp. I put on record my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee and my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) for securing this timely debate.
I wish to start by discussing the most abhorrent example of antisemitism: holocaust denial. The Community Security Trust recently undertook a study of holocaust denial in relation to an alternative social media site, BitChute, which unfortunately still operates, providing a safe space for antisemitic, racist, misogynistic and conspiracy-fuelled content from the far right. The CST conducted searches on BitChute in the 24 hours running up to Holocaust Memorial Day this year. The searches related to five non-offensive terms related to the holocaust: “holocaust”, “Auschwitz”, “Hitler”, “gas chambers”, and “Anne Frank”.
What was found were easily accessible videos in vast quantities that both denied and glorified the holocaust. In every single case, the vast majority of the search results were overtly antisemitic. The CST limited its search to the first 20 videos per search item, and 94 of them were considered overtly antisemitic. These 94 videos had a combined viewing figure of over 1.5 million. Some of the videos are inaccessible in the UK, and rightly so, but this is easily circumvented by using a virtual private network. These 94 videos were only a fraction of thousands more that were glorifying the holocaust, and we do need to be doing more to remove this content. Holocaust denial is only one part of the problem on BitChute, which still hosts large quantities of other antisemitic, racist and conspiracy-fuelled material. I look forward to being able to address this further when the online harms Bill comes forward.
I pay tribute to the fantastic work that the Community Security Trust does to keep the Jewish community safe every single day. I also pay tribute to the work of the Antisemitism Policy Trust, and Danny Stone in particular. My constituent Noemie Lopian recently shared the story of her family’s experience during the “long night” and the book telling the story of her father, Ernst Israel Bornstein. The Fed Jewish care home in my constituency runs the My Voice project to make sure that these holocaust survivors will never be forgotten and their stories will live on. The work of the Holocaust Educational Trust, which many hon. and right hon. Members have mentioned, and of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, certainly needs to be remembered. This year’s theme is “Be the light in the darkness”. We really must be that light and say firmly, as a House, “Never again”.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak in this important debate as a proudly Jewish parliamentarian.
This year, Holocaust Memorial Day and today’s debate coincide with the Jewish festival of Tu Bishvat. It is one of four “new years” within the Jewish calendar, marking the birthday of trees for the purposes of the mitzvot relating to farming practices and the permissibility of the fruits of those trees for eating or bringing to Jerusalem as a tithe. In contemporary Judaism, and in the context of increased awareness around ecological issues and the climate emergency, the festival is having something of a renaissance, with millions of trees planted every year and lively debates within our community about what we can learn from our traditions of sustainable farming practices and respect for the divinity of the natural world. In the context of Holocaust Memorial Day, there are some deeper lessons we can take from Tu Bishvat into our reflection, as we honour the lives of those murdered in the holocaust and subsequent genocides in Rwanda, Cambodia, Bosnia and Darfur, and into action as we resolve to make “never again” about more than just platitudes.
I spoke in my speech last year of the incredible story of the Sarajevo Haggadah and Dervis Korkut, a Muslim man who is recognised by the Yad Vashem world holocaust memorial centre as a righteous gentile to whom the Jewish people owe a huge debt. We are not short of these stories of heroism and resistance, and in this place we are enormously privileged in our position of being able bring about the kinds of large scale changes that these heroes could only dream of. We need not risk our lives smuggling Swedish passports into Nazi-occupied Hungary, like Raoul Wallenberg, or smuggling Jewish children out of the Warsaw ghetto, like Irena Sendler, or hiding Jews in the Albanian mountains, like Vesel and Fatima Veseli, because we can bring about a fair and just immigration system that protects the lives of refugees, we can work to halt the proliferation of fascist propaganda online, and we can use our international standing, our influence and our trade policy to hold other nations accountable. We need not look the other way as people are persecuted around the world when we have both the moral obligation and the means as a nation to “be the light”. It brings me great sadness to say that, as a House, we are failing in this duty. Solidarity is our most powerful weapon against genocide, and our communities must not allow us to be divided nor to see others scapegoated or disasters exploited by the far right.
One of the stories often told from the Talmud at this time of year is of Honi the circle maker. One day, Honi the circle maker was walking on the road and saw a man planting a carob tree. Honi asked the man, “How long will it take for this tree to bear fruit?” The man replied, “Seventy years.” Honi then asked the man, “And do you think you will live another 70 years to eat the fruit of this tree?” The man answered, “Perhaps not. In the same way as my fathers planted for me, I will also plant for my children.”
We know about the long-reaching shadow of inherited pasts and post-memory—the relationship that the generation after bears to the personal, collective and cultural trauma of those that came before—but Tu B’Shevat marks the time when the sap starts flowing in the trees again, the welcome reminder of nature’s rhythm and light returning after the darkness, with trees growing, blooming and fruiting. As we preserve the memory of those who can no longer share their own stories, all of us have a duty to sow the seeds of solidarity and friendship for our children, even if we may never live to see the fruits ourselves.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
When other countries were rounding up their Jewish communities and herding them on to the trains to the gas chambers, Britain provided a haven for thousands of refugee children. In November 1938, the then Government announced the Kindertransport scheme, and the Dudley refugee committee was in one of the very first waves of local committees formed the following month. One of its founders, a Mr Honigmann, was a refugee himself, having escaped antisemitic laws in Germany. It was in Dudley that he found safety, and he became a scientific adviser to the newly opened Dudley zoo. Teachers from local schools in Dudley joined him in his efforts, and an excellent education was provided for the Jewish refugee children.
One young man, Georg Kreisel, before reaching the safety of British shores, had been arrested at a school in Vienna, and witnessed horrific beatings and slayings. Out of the 3,000 men and boys who had been detained, Georg was among just three who were released. The rest were sent to concentration camps. He observed:
“Behind me the gates of a hell closed, and horror-stricken, I sought my way home.”
Georg excelled academically, and towards the end of world war two, he made an important contribution to the success of D-day by calculating the effect of waves on the floating harbours being designed for the Normandy landings.
My predecessor in Dudley North, Lord Austin, the son of a holocaust refugee, did a great deal of work to root out antisemitism, and I pay tribute to him for his efforts. To echo the sentiments he told this House, it is the contribution we make in the belief in the values that British people have fought and died for—values of democracy, equality and freedom, fairness and tolerance—that make us British.
We must all take responsibility not just for our actions, but for our language as well. There is no place for identity-based prejudice and hostility, wherever this manifests itself. All of us have a duty to be vigilant, alert to the insidious traps set by those who seek to divide us. I welcome the Government’s introduction of the online harms Bill, but I would ask Ministers to look again at the categorisation and assess whether more could be done to tackle smaller platforms such as BitChute—my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) has just referred to it—which is a video platform for neo-Nazis. We must not allow any cesspit of hateful, antisemitic, racist abuse to grow and take hold. We all know what happened when it did.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Many schools across Hartlepool have held online events this week to commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day. In following their example, each and every one of us in this House has an obligation to stand up to hatred wherever and whenever we see it. We must use every opportunity to educate people about the horrors of the past to avoid further atrocities in the future.
The holocaust was not the last genocide to take place. Genocides have taken place while the international community has watched with horror on several occasions since the end of the second world war. We owe it to the survivors of the holocaust and of subsequent genocides in Europe, Africa, the middle east, and southern and central Asia to redouble our efforts to stop the slaughter. In our roles, we must set an example and a standard in public life. We must oppose those who seek to cause division and spread false information at every turn.
Prior to the rise of the Nazis, Germany was awash with antisemitism and antisemitic conspiracies, and we must learn from that experience. What begins as a wild myth can soon be accepted as fact across a broad section of society. With the acceptance of lies as truth comes the danger of violence. We know what that can lead to and we know what that did.
Antisemitism and every other form of hatred have not gone away since 1945. They are still here, still wreaking havoc and devastation across our communities, and still causing fear. Even now, Jewish people have told me that they do not dare be open about their religion or culture in some situations for fear of the reaction they might get. The same is true for other minority groups.
With the rapid rise of antisemitic conspiracies such as QAnon spread by the uneducated and hate-filled platforms like Twitter and endorsed by some of the most prominent political figures in America, it is clear that our fight is not yet over—not even close. The sickening image of a man standing inside the US Capitol building, the seat of American democracy, wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with the words “Camp Auschwitz” shows the extent of what we are still facing as a society 70 years on. That must be our duty and our pledge to those who lost their lives, to the survivors and to future generations the world over. We should never forget and when we say never again, we must mean never again.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
It is a real privilege to take part in today’s debate. It might be 76 years since the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp, but it remains as important as ever that we remember what happened.
This year, the theme for Holocaust Memorial Day is to be the light in the darkness. Light is an incredible thing: it brings hope, it brings knowledge and it exposes. It is this light which showed us the scale of horror and devastation inflicted by the Nazi regime: 6 million Jewish people and millions more—Soviet citizens, Polish people, gay people, Gypsies and many, many more. The number of victims is almost incomprehensible to us and it is an evil brought about by our fellow man, showing us what can happen if we look the other way. It is a sobering reminder to all of us who sit in this place of the deep and humbling responsibility we have, and it is why I support a permanent holocaust memorial next to Parliament.
Earlier this week I spoke to the Jewish Leadership Council, the Antisemitism Policy Trust and the Community Security Trust, three organisations which do incredible work to protect Jewish people in this country and ensure we never lose sight of the work we still must do to end antisemitism. It is a sad reality that far from eradicating antisemitism, it appears to be on the rise. We know there are places on the internet where it thrives alongside other hate and extremism. Those are not dark, unknown corners of the internet, but the platforms many of us use: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, as well as the more obscure ones, including the ones explained in such great detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford).
Antisemitism is not just confined to the internet. Burnley does not have a large Jewish population, but last year one of my constituents, Ashley, who is just 18 years old, was attacked for no other reason than his Jewish faith. I want to recognise Ashley’s bravery in coming forward, and thank the CST for the support and help it provided to him. Ashley is a light in the darkness, showing the problems that still exist.
We have heard so many powerful speeches in this debate, including the one from my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). They show us why we should stand vigilantly. We must stand ready to protect those who need it; not to stand by, but to stand up.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Patricia, I understand that you are having difficulties seeing a timer, so I will gently ask you to finish after three minutes if you have not already done so.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) [V]
As we reflect today on the murder of six million Jews in the holocaust, we have heard today, shamefully, how antisemitism is still increasing. It is shameful that armed guards are often felt necessary to guard synagogues in London. That is something that should be part of our reflections today.
Currently, we see another genocide being carried out against the Uyghur population. It is unfolding before our very eyes, showing that great evil is still very much a feature of our world. The theme of this year’s commemorations, be the light in the darkness, is not just the light of goodness and hope, but the light that we must shine into the darkest corners of the world whether they be in Europe, Asia, Africa or anywhere else where hatred lurks and seeks to destroy others. Sadly, genocide is not something that is part of our history—it is with us today. The world rightly condemns the atrocities against the Uyghur population, which has chilling parallels to what happened in Europe in the 1940s. It is our moral duty to do everything in our power to stand up to those who violate basic human rights, however powerful they may be. In the world today, nation states that perpetrate such evil must not be glad-handed. They must not be gently coaxed as we seek to sign trade deals. States that perpetrate such evil must not be flattered because we believe them to be powerful and important. We must not tiptoe around leaders or regimes that preside over brutality.
There must be no doubt that we will not tolerate genocide, flagrant abuses of human rights, or hatred in any form. If we are truly serious about condemning such persecution, that must be reflected in this House’s supporting the amendment to the Trade Bill that seeks to terminate any trade deal with any country committing genocide. There can be no equivocation when it comes to dealing with evil.
The holocaust has taught us that hatred in all its forms does not appear overnight; it is the result of creeping, insidious, manipulative, predatory and strategic campaigning to turn one group against another. That is what happened in Germany in the 1940s to the Jewish people, and it is the pattern of all such campaigns of hatred, so we must always be aware. Let our light in the darkness be not just a light of hope but a beacon shining on evil, so that it can be fully exposed and challenged wherever it lurks.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
Having been born and raised in Germany, where people do not shy away from their past lest the lessons be forgotten, I thought I was reasonably well versed in this subject. Then, last January, I had the opportunity to visit Yad Vashem. I would urge any Member here to visit that memorial, Auschwitz-Birkenau, or any of the other testaments to the unspeakable evil we are debating today. I have no shame in saying that that experience broke me.
There is a passage in the Talmud that states:
“Once a person has sinned and repeated the sin, [he treats it] as if it has become permitted.”
That verse warns of the mesmeric ease with which the worst of human behaviour can be repeated and then normalised—what political theorist Hannah Arendt called the “banality of evil”. We have a duty, as a people who have enjoyed nearly 1,000 years of relative wealth, prosperity and freedom, to stand against that banality of evil wherever we perceive it. We have not always been equal to that task.
One of the darkest stains on the soul of this nation and, indeed, this place began with the phrase
“a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing”.
The catastrophe that followed allowed us to know those people a lot better, yet we still abandoned them to over 40 years of communist oppression after world war two as we turned inward to look after ourselves. “Enlightened self-interest” is rarely anything but. As Martin Niemöller once put it:
“Als sie mich holten, gab es keinen mehr, der protestierte.”
“When they came for me, there was no one left to speak for me.”
In commemorating the shoah, we must not satisfy ourselves that we are remembering an historical event that happened many years ago; in a very real sense, it is ongoing. The places—Darfur, Srebrenica, Rwanda—and the names—Yazidi, Rohingya, Uyghur—have changed, but the evil has not.
By our simple luck of birth, we cannot justify turning a blind eye. Nor can modern geopolitical realpolitik give a free pass to the perpetrators, whom we meet on a regular basis, whom we talk to, and one of whom we invited here to give a speech in Westminster Hall. When Andrew Marr can show the Chinese ambassador footage of Uyghurs being rounded on to trains and his response is to talk about tourism in Xinjiang, and when official Chinese social media accounts can boast of liberating Uyghur women by sterilising them, we are staring into the void. We must decide whether we want the void to stare back at us.
As we remember the 6 million stolen lives of the shoah—HaShem yikom damam—I hope that Members across the Chamber will also remember those still fighting to live just because of who they are.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) [V]
It is a privilege to take part in this debate, and to take the opportunity today to remember and pay my respects to all those who have been lost and who have suffered as a result of division and hate.
Holocaust Memorial Day is a day to remember the 6 million Jews murdered during the holocaust, and those who experienced those atrocities as they inevitably reduce in number. It is more important than ever that we continue to observe this day so that generations to come never forget the horrors that were carried out during the holocaust, alongside the victims of genocide in Rwanda, Darfur, Cambodia and Bosnia. I thank one of my local authorities, South Tyneside, which organised its own online event, of which I was very happy to be a part.
The world has a duty to remember that the holocaust was an evil attempt to eliminate 6 million innocent Jewish people and so many others, including LGBT, Roma, Sinti and disabled people, as well as trade unionists and the elderly, all of whom were victims of such horrific Nazi brutality. They were heartlessly killed for no reason other than that they were shockingly identified as being inferior by virtue of their ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or political affiliation.
That humans are capable of such appalling brutality, based on an adherence to a doctrine of hate, is incomprehensible, but to fail to retell one of the darkest periods of human history would be an injustice to those who perished. I am sure the holocaust will carry emotional memories for many of us. For me, I remember my great uncle Frederick, who was one of the first British soldiers to liberate the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp on 15 April 1945, and my youngest son is proudly named after him. It is essential that we continue to educate the next and future generations, so that they are aware of what happened under the Nazi regime and can develop a more tolerant society, free from racism, prejudice and bigotry.
Hatred and intolerance continue to exist 76 years later, and hate speech and hate crimes are on the rise. Our communities are becoming increasingly divided. All too often, acts of horrific cruelty are still being carried out around the world against people because of their religion, their race and their beliefs. In memory of the millions who perished, let us recommit ourselves to tolerance and respect and to stand together, so that their legacy will be a society of co-operation and compassion. We can and we must be the light in the darkness.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) [V]
Yesterday, I was proud to see Durham cathedral and castle lit up to mark Holocaust Memorial Day. They joined scores of other landmarks illuminated to mark the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau in 1945 and to remember the victims of the holocaust.
Some may question the value of these memorials and events, with our focus being on the pandemic and the crisis we are currently living through, but to me it makes them even more important. In hard times, where events are moving so quickly, it is good for us to pause for a minute and reflect.
The theme of this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day, “light in the darkness”, is very appropriate, because these have been dark times, too. The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust urges us to remember those who were murdered for who they were and to stand against prejudice and hatred in the present day. Both are equally important. Understanding our history is vital to learn the lessons of the past, so that we have hope of a better future.
As many have pointed out over the past few days, the persecution of Jewish people in Germany did not start with the concentration camps, but with stereotyping and prejudiced language, then hatred and scapegoating. We know where it ends. A few years ago, I visited Natzweiler-Struthof camp on the Alsace border, and that will be forever etched in my mind. Natzweiler-Struthof was well known for being used for medical experiments by SS guards.
No two historical periods are the same, but we live in fragile times. Frustration and anger are everywhere and, once again, the instinct for many is to look for scapegoats. As the Jewish writer and poet Michael Rosen wrote a few years ago:
“Fascism arrives as your friend.
It will restore your honour,
make you feel proud,
protect your house,
give you a job,
clean up the neighbourhood,
remind you of how great you once were,
clear out the venal and the corrupt,
remove anything you feel is unlike you...”
Sadly, I see some of that in the way we talk about the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities in this country, and sometimes even in this House. Romany Gypsies were victims of the holocaust, too. Hundreds of thousands perished in Nazi Germany, yet many see anti-Traveller sentiment as an acceptable form of racism in 2021. It is not, and as we remember the holocaust, we should learn the lessons of that terrible period.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) [V]
The Holocaust is not the only example of man’s inhumanity to man. It is not the only genocide, and while it touched every corner of Europe, the United Kingdom was, relatively speaking at least, barely affected. So why remember? It is surely because, as we have already heard so vividly today, it still has the power to shock. The scale is difficult to comprehend. This was not a rampage or a single, impulsive act. Winston Churchill warned in 1940 of
“a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science”.
In the “final solution”, that was made real by educated men, calm deliberation and technical precision. The holocaust was made possible by attitudes that were prevalent in early 20th-century society.
The reason we should continue to remember is encapsulated in the post-war experiences of Toivi Blatt, a Polish Jew who escaped from the Sobibor extermination camp and later found a new life in Israel and then in the United States. Laurence Rees’s book, “Auschwitz: the Nazis and the ‘Final Solution’”, tells how in the early 1990s Toivi returned to visit his home village of Izbica in eastern Poland. He visited his old family home, from before they were taken to the camps, and asked the new owner if he could look around the house where he grew up. The new owner was reluctant, but the offer of US$3 convinced him. In the living room, Toivi noticed a chair that had belonged to his father. The homeowner said that that was impossible, but Toivi turned over the chair to reveal the family name written on the base. “Mr Blatt, why the comedy with the chair?” the homeowner asked. “I know why you’re here. You have come for the hidden money. We could divide it 50/50.” Toivi was furious, and left immediately. There is some poetic justice in the story. When Toivi next returned to Izbica, he found his old house in ruins. A neighbour told him: “When you left, we were unable to sleep because day and night he was looking for the treasure you were supposed to have hidden. He took the floor apart, the walls apart, everything. And later he found himself in the situation that he couldn’t fix it—it would cost too much money. And so now it’s a ruin.” Poetic justice, perhaps, but a reminder that while the attitudes that triggered the Holocaust are less prevalent today, they have not been extinguished. We must remember.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) [V]
It is a huge privilege to be able to speak today in this important debate. I am mindful of the time pressure and I will be brief. Holocaust Memorial Day is so important and so necessary. It is an opportunity to remember all those murdered by the Nazis, the 6 million Jews, the thousands of Roma and Sinti, the political prisoners, those with disabilities and mental illness and those persecuted for their sexuality. It is also the day when we remember the 2 million victims of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and the almost 1 million victims of the Rwandan genocide of the 1990s. It is also the day when we remember the 8,000 Muslim men and boys murdered in Srebrenica more than 25 years ago. On Holocaust Memorial Day, we come together to remember them all, to mourn their loss and to commit ourselves to never letting this hate blight our world again.
Like so many people across Newport West, I welcome the theme for this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day, “Be the light in the darkness”. It is a call to action against identity-based persecution, misinformation and the denial of justice. I was glad to be able to join so many people across the UK for the online memorial service last night, organised by the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, and I pay tribute to the trust’s amazing effort to produce such a poignant service incorporating input from victims and leaders across the UK. This is a timely focus for the fight for a better world, and we need to remember that the generation who lived this horrific experience are now passing on. Soon, all of those who faced the sheer horror and brutality of the holocaust and survived will no longer be with us, so we owe it to them, and to all those who died at the hands of the Nazis, to never forget and to always remain vigilant.
People across Newport West reflected yesterday on the vicious murders, on the hopes and dreams robbed by the Nazis and on what we can do to stop hatred taking hold again. I was pleased that the leader of Newport City Council—Councillor Jane Mudd—and her colleagues across the political parties came together yesterday to light the Civic Centre purple as our city marked Holocaust Memorial Day.
This year, we were not able to remember together, nor to reaffirm anew our commitment to a better world, but we will meet again next year. The millions of victims of genocide across the world will not have this opportunity, so let us seize the ability to meet again that we have been blessed with, let us protect it always, and let us commit ourselves to eradicating hate wherever we find it. I am honoured to speak for the people of Newport West in this debate, and I pledge on behalf of us all to never walk by on the other side.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con) [V]
I am truly humbled to be called to take part in today’s debate. As I lit a candle last night to mark the 76th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, I reflected on my visit there some years ago. I was attending a conference in nearby Krakow and felt compelled to take time out to make the journey. I travelled there by train, and was unable to imagine what that journey would have been like for the millions of Jews who knew what the final destination meant.
We all have moments in our lives that remain embedded in our memories long after others fade. I remember vividly the eerie silence and the absence of birdsong as I entered the site. The sign “Arbeit Macht Frei” was a grim reminder that I was stepping back into the setting of the most abhorrent atrocity in the last 100 years. Before visiting the Auschwitz living museum, I had not fully understood the extent to which the genocide perpetrated by the Nazis reached beyond the Jewish population, to include a wide range of political opponents, other ethnic groups such as the Roma community, gay men and people with disabilities. But in remembering the lives of these victims, so brutally murdered by the Nazis, who felt empowered to commit these atrocities, we must recommit ourselves as a society to tackling that hatred, intolerance and prejudice in whatever modern day shape it may take.
That is why, as so few survivors of the holocaust remain to talk of their lived experience, it has never been more important that their stories are captured or retold by future generations—lest we forget. Yet as the London Eye lit up purple and candles were lit in windows yesterday evening to commemorate and remember the dead, denial, division and misinformation continues. I welcome the work of organisations such as the Holocaust Educational Trust that play an important role in providing educational events for students across the country on Holocaust Memorial Day and throughout the year. I also absolutely support the Government’s commitment to building a permanent statue and Holocaust Memorial education centre next to Parliament.
Lessons were meant to be learnt from the horrors of the holocaust. The world was to change for the better forever. How, then, do we explain Bosnia, Cambodia, Darfur, Rwanda, the Rohingya people and the plight of Uyghurs in China? As I know many colleagues wish to speak in this debate, I will end my speech now, with the poignant words of holocaust survivor Gena Turgel:
“We will continue to do our bit for as long as we can, secure in the knowledge that others will continue to light a candle long after us.”
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) [V]
The theme of this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day is “Be the light in the darkness”, encouraging us to focus on those who, over the years, have found the courage and the conviction to take a stand against hatred and division, and to remind us of our duty to confront racism, division and misinformation wherever we see it. We should not underestimate the great courage that it can take to do so, or see it as a challenge confined to the history books.
Just three weeks ago, a group of thugs stormed the heart of US democracy. Among their number was a man wearing a “Camp Auschwitz” t-shirt, and others wearing shirts emblazoned with deeply offensive and disturbing messages. This did not come out of nowhere. Too many politicians have failed to take a stand for freedom, tolerance and the rule of law over the last few years. When President Trump refused to accept electoral defeat in November, one Republican party official was quoted as saying,
“What is the downside for humoring him for this little bit of time?”.
History has repeatedly confirmed that appeasement in the face of prejudice and hatred only emboldens those who perpetrate it.
One of the reasons why the rise of the Nazis is so difficult for us to come to terms with is that it is not something that happened centuries ago or in a failed state on the other side of the world; it happened in western Europe in the mid-20th century. It stands as a grave warning of where hatred and misinformation can lead, if we allow it to, even in the wealthiest and best-educated societies.
Today, the worrying reality is that many British Jews see antisemitism creeping back into everyday life. So what do we do? First, we educate. I pay tribute to the work of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Holocaust Educational Trust, which have helped me to understand the true horror of the holocaust, and my duty to ensure that we teach future generations what is right and how to build a better future.
Secondly, we legislate, through the online safety Bill, and by adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism. We work, on a cross-party basis, through the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism, which I co-chair, and which I invite all Members to join. Most of all, we set the tone in public discourse, with no pandering to racist, divisive narratives, and no standing by when we see antisemitism in or outside politics. Sadly, we still have work to do in my party to repair the damage of the past five years.
Through active remembrance, which we continue to do through this annual debate and events, I hope that Holocaust Memorial Day will serve as a marker for future generations that we have listened, we have learnt, we have acted, and never again.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) [V]
North Norfolk is a peaceful constituency of farming, beautiful coastline and, of course, the Norfolk broads. Life generally moves slowly, with a broads ranger quietly reminding a speeding boat that 5 mph is well over the 4 mph limit, and to be more careful in future.
Had I been the MP for North Norfolk in the 1930s, I wonder how I would have reacted to the growing stories of antisemitism in Europe. I wonder how Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Thomas Russell Albert Mason Cook, my predecessor from 1931 to 1945, would have reacted. According to Hansard, in the years between his election and the outbreak of war, he did not once mention the subject. It is not surprising, really, and I do not blame him, because in the same period from Hitler’s power grab, antisemitism gets only 43 mentions in Hansard, and those are largely in passing. In Hitler’s early days in power, that is perhaps excusable, but our records show not only a lack of interest in the rise of evil elsewhere, but a positive wish to keep it there. There are quite a few examples to choose from, but perhaps this one from a debate in 1938 is as good as any to prove the point:
“We must remember that if these people come in here, we risk the rousing of anti-Semitism in this country.” —[Official Report, 24 November 1938; Vol. 341, c. 2053.]
Thankfully, times have changed and continue to change.
As an island nation, we could be accused of being inward-looking. We must not be. Too often it is easier to turn a blind eye or to make the excuse that we must fix our own problems first. Too often, especially these days, people are afraid of calling out wrongdoing or evil for fear of being branded a troublemaker or disrupter, of going against the tide, of challenging authority, of raising their voice when others say they must not, because it means putting their career and reputation at risk. So have I any right to call out Sir Thomas for worrying more about the British sugar subsidy in 1935 than the persecution of Jews in Germany? No. We live in very different times; but it is an important reflection of how far we have come, and must continue to move, so that this period of history is never forgotten yet always learnt from.
That is why today we should be standing up for the Rohingya in Myanmar, and against the Dinka ethnic group in South Sudan for their persecution of the Neur people. We should be calling out the persecution of the Yazidis in Iraq. Perhaps most seriously, there is the persecution of the Uyghurs by the Chinese state. We put our economic comfort against the untold distress of an entire people. These atrocities are happening today. Are we a light in their darkness? We should be. Let us all be a light in their darkness.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
It is a privilege to speak in today’s debate. No words can really describe the evil perpetrated by man upon their fellow man in a deliberate act of extermination of an entire race. As the survivors—the living testament to this evil pass—it is vital that we redouble our efforts to ensure that a light continues to be shone upon this evil. That is why I am glad to add my support to those seeking a permanent memorial here in our nation’s capital—a city that shone a light in the darkness during the dark days of the second world war. I cannot think of a more poignant or apt tribute to those people.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) [V]
It is an honour and a privilege to speak in today’s debate. A staggering and heartbreaking 6 million Jews—women, men and children—were murdered during the holocaust. Today we collectively commemorate and remember them. Today we collectively grieve and say, “Never again.”
The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust’s theme for this year could not be more fitting: “Be the light in the darkness.” This theme invites us to reflect on the murky depths to which humanity can sink. We saw it in the holocaust and in the genocides that followed, from Cambodia to Darfur, Bosnia and Rwanda—dark stains on all of humanity. The light derives from communities who defied evil and those who rose to save lives—those who put their own lives on the line to stand up to and against hate. We salute those people, we commemorate them and we remember them.
The holocaust was not something that happened long ago. It is our recent history, and it should always remain engraved in our consciousness. Millions of Jews and non-Jews were murdered through forced labour, starvation, bullets and gas chambers. We should rightly be proud of the role that British forces played in liberating those who were sent to die in concentration and extermination camps such as Bergen-Belsen.
In the aftermath of the war, more than 3,000 holocaust survivors settled in Britain. In putting together my remarks for this speech, I was inspired by the story of Martin Kapel, who grew up in Coventry. Martin was born of Polish parents in Germany, and I welled up as I read about the horrors he witnessed as a young boy. Fortunately, he was selected to be transported to Britain through the Kindertransport programme. He was one of the thousands of Jewish children who survived by escaping to Britain while the communities they came from were destroyed. I am proud that he chose to make Coventry his home.
I am proud that, today, Coventry still holds its status as a sanctuary city, home to refugees fleeing violence. I join the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust in calling on us all to be the light in the darkness. In doing so, we make a commitment to continue to stand against hate. We make a commitment to not be complacent in the face of intolerance and not to look the other way. We must do right by those who are fleeing persecution. Never again should we stand by and watch genocide take place or forget our most important humanitarian principles.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
It is a great privilege to speak on this most important occasion. Between 1935 and 1945, an estimated 16 million people were killed by the Nazi regime. That included 6 million Jews, 7 million Soviet citizens, 3 million Soviet prisoners of war, 1.8 million non-Jewish Polish civilians, 312,000 Serbian civilians, 250,000 people with disabilities and 250,000 Roma Gypsies. The breadth of depravity was breathtaking. It included legalised social discrimination, involuntary hospitalisation, euthanasia, forced sterilisation, forced labour, sexual slavery, human experimentation and downright murder. I say to those holocaust deniers who may be watching: “You do not speak for me or anybody in this place, and you need to take a look in the mirror.”
Sadly, so few of those who witnessed these appalling events are still with us today, but we must record their testimony while we still can and capture the evidence of that time. My own testimony is limited. When I was based in Germany, we visited Bergen-Belsen and travelled further afield to Auschwitz—dark, scary and eerie places. I heard a number of questions, including, “Daddy, is it true that the birds don’t sing?” to which I replied, “Yes, I think so.” Of course, there is a reason why the birds do not sing.
In 2016, the regiment I was commanding in Germany was tasked to set up a convoy support centre in Altengrabow, just west of Berlin. We discovered very quickly that it was the location for Stalag 11 A, and had also been home to German and Soviet forces throughout recent history. It became obvious that in the woods behind the big, barbed wire fence, there were some strange buildings. I have no idea what those buildings were, but history must be recorded there, too.
I have seen with my own two eyes atrocities in Sierra Leone and in Bosnia—atrocities of Governments, of Serbs, of Croats, Christians against Muslims and vice versa, the Revolutionary United Front against the people in Sierra Leone, and Makeni, Ahmići, Goražde and Srebrenica. More recently, we have seen Rwanda and Yemen, the Uyghurs in China, and Cambodia. This is happening right now—it is happening in our world, today, on our doorstep—and it must be stopped with the full power of the United Nations, NATO, military force, peacekeeping, peace enforcement and sanctions. Most importantly, for now, the evidence and the testimony from these current events must be captured, so that lessons are learned for the future and that those who perpetrate these dreadful crimes are brought to justice.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) [V]
Like others who have spoken, I remember my visit to Auschwitz with a group of sixth formers, organised by the Holocaust Educational Trust, to which I pay tribute. It was around this time of year. It was freezing. There was no snow on the ground. I will never forget how I felt as I thought of human beings being forced to march across that frozen ground, barefoot, near naked, on their way to extermination.
We must never forget that we allowed it to happen. That is why we cannot quietly ignore or excuse antisemitism. That is why we must challenge phoney equivalence arguments and free speech excuses, no matter where they come from or who says it. Excuses mean complicity.
When we think of Israel, it is right to question the motives of those who constantly single out that state for special treatment. That does not mean that I do not support a just settlement, a democratic and viable Palestinian state, and a secure and recognised Israel—I do support those things. It does mean, however, that when I hear the frank views of As’ad AbuKhalil, who has said:
“The real aim of BDS is to bring down the state of Israel…That should be stated as an unambiguous goal”,
or those of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, who has said:
“It is the mission of the Islamic Republic…to erase Israel from the map of the region”,
I question the intentions and the motives of those who support such people and such movements.
It was exactly those kinds of views that paved the way to Auschwitz. We should never forget what indifference and turning a blind eye can lead to. Let us be a light in the darkness.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]
My constituency is home to a long-standing Jewish community, and I regularly meet constituents whose lives have been personally deeply affected by the events that we remember today, including many who fled persecution and found sanctuary here in the UK.
We have heard many examples during this debate of where our country has been, or has tried to be, the light against genocide and oppression, wherever it has occurred in the world. I pay particular tribute to members of our armed forces, who have often been the last defence of those at risk, and all too often the first on the scene to provide succour when atrocities occurred, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart).
My constituents would be the first to remind me that this debate is about future action as well as remembrance. The UK is the leading country in Europe for the resettlement of child refugees and continues to play an honourable role in efforts to bring peace and stability to the wider world. As we remember the victims of the holocaust and of genocide throughout history, it is also an opportunity to consider that, as well as seeking to bring the light of freedom to places where there is none, our country remains a beacon of light to those who are fleeing oppression.
The new global resettlement scheme is an opportunity to restate our commitment to the United Kingdom being a place of refuge. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) mentioned, Hansard records little consideration of issues of oppression and the risk of genocide in the run-up to the holocaust. At a time when we know that, across the world, there is great instability and great risk to life and peace, let us all ensure, following this debate today, that we have a genuinely humanitarian approach as we consider the policies that we will need in the future at a time when we are saying collectively, “Never again”.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) [V]
It is a privilege to be called to speak in this debate. In 2013, I visited Auschwitz-Birkenau. What affected me more than anything else, more than the watch towers and the crematoriums, were the signs of life—the human hair, the family suitcases, the stacks of shoes. Today in Parliament we remember the 6 million Jewish people and the millions of Roma, Sinti, LGBT and disabled people who were murdered by the Nazis. We also remember the resistance to the Nazis, the resistance seen when Hanukkah arrived and a menorah was lit on a Berlin windowsill even as swastikas flew outside, when the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto rose up in one of the most inspiring acts of human history and when prisoners in Treblinka and Sobibor rebelled in the shadow of the gas chamber and killed Nazi oppressors. Alongside the horrors of the holocaust are these accounts of the human spirit—of people standing up to the most brutal of evils. Today, we must treasure and defend the daily reminders of the Nazis’ defeat—from every synagogue service and every Jewish family who pass on their traditions to the next generation to our rejection of racial hierarchy and our celebration of multiculturalism.
History is not over. Antisemitism and the far right are on the rise. Earlier this month, we saw fascists wearing Nazi iconography storming Capitol Hill. A man who called white supremacist protesters “very fine people” held the world’s most powerful office. In Hungary, the Prime Minister spreads Soros conspiracies and lauds generals who sent tens of thousands of Jewish people to Nazi concentration camps. In Brazil, the far right president attacks the rights of LGBT people, indigenous people and trade unionists. Here in Britain, antisemites still spread conspiracies about the Rothschilds and George Soros.
Antisemitic violence remains a growing threat to Jewish people. Our communities are still divided by racism. Frantz Fanon, an intellectual of the anti-colonial struggle, said that whenever he saw an antisemite, he knew that he, too, was threatened. That was not only because plenty of antisemites are white supremacists, but for a deeper reason. It is because that kind of thinking that produces antisemitism blames social ills on minority groups. It is a thinking that encourages us to turn on each other and to treat our neighbours as our enemies. So long as that thinking exists, Fanon said that none of us are safe from denigration and attack. That is why we all have a stake in fighting for each other, in combating antisemitism and racism in all of its forms. When we come together and link our struggles, we are all made stronger. There is safety and solidarity, and today and every day, I extend my solidarity to Jewish people and everyone facing—
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con) [V]
It is painful to imagine, as a parent, the possibility of saying goodnight to one’s child and not knowing whether a knock at the door could mean never saying goodnight to them again. That is the reality of the holocaust. Six million lives were lost—due not to famine or pandemic, but to hate. In this debate, we have heard powerful statements and numbers beyond comprehension of victims of genocide around the world—lives lost, contributions to society that we will never know, and stories wickedly ended before their time.
We often say that time heals, but it can leave a scar. The holocaust is a scar on humanity that we must face up to, even today. As we mark Holocaust Memorial Day, we reflect on a simple yet powerful statement: be the light in the darkness. In doing so we must remember that, just as the night descends each evening, darkness can also fall slowly on us all. Darkness can exist only if there is an absence of light. It is only by choosing to look the other way that we diminish the light of humanity.
The trouble with the darkness is that it allows otherwise good people to believe that they cannot see what is happening around them. No baby is born with hatred in their heart, yet there are those who will twist the human condition to nurture hate and to plant the seeds of hate with words of envy and of “us versus them” and, ultimately, at the worst extreme, to generate acts of evil while others pretend they do not see them.
We cannot bring back those whose lives were ended too soon, but we can ensure that others do not have to fear that knock at the door. We cannot bring back to life the millions whose lives were tragically ended, but with every candle we light, every child we educate, every time we choose not to like or share statements of intolerance and every time we challenge acts of hate around the world, we shine a light on those who would prefer to hide in the darkness.
The holocaust and the genocides ever since have taught us that we must never be complacent. We must continue to look around the world, today and in all our tomorrows, to ensure that we are not ignoring the plight of others. As we mark Holocaust Memorial Day, let us all be in the light in the darkness.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]
I pay tribute to Liverpool’s long-established Jewish community, and to two former residents: Maurice Eschwege and his daughter Vera Goltschmitt. As a young child, Maurice moved from Germany to Liverpool, where he grew up. He married Isabella Annoni, an Italian Catholic, and they had three children: Vera, Alexander and Muriel. Maurice ran a jewellers and pawnbrokers business on Lime Street. He was a pillar of the community and served as a justice of the peace. He was twice elected as a Labour councillor for the St Anne’s ward of the city in the 1920s.
When his wife Isabella died, Maurice moved to Paris to live with his daughter Vera and her husband. After the war broke out, Maurice was transported to a German camp—he never returned. Vera, her husband and their youngest son Alain were all transported to Auschwitz, where they were murdered alongside millions of others—Jews, Slavic peoples, Roma and Sinti communities, black, disabled and LGBT people and political opponents, who all perished at the hands of the Nazis. Today, we remember them, and in their stories we seek to learn the lessons of the past.
We recognise that the forces that drove this evil were pervasive and widespread: Governments and politicians throughout Europe—even in the UK—made antisemitism acceptable through their statements and actions, especially when denying safety to refugees. Today, as our Government lock asylum seekers in inhumane conditions in military bases and close the door on unaccompanied child refugees, it is clear that we still have much to learn.
Today, we must recognise that genocide does not begin with the death camp, but is what happens when we allow discrimination, racism and hatred to go unchecked—when we allow politicians and the media to divide us and govern through hatred. We a collective promise to reinforce our commitment to fighting the rise of racism and those political forces who would take us back to some of the darkest times of European history; and to take a stand against the normalisation and institutionalisation of discrimination and hatred in our own country and across the world.
As we take this opportunity to remember the millions who lost their lives in the holocaust, we remember prior genocides in the Congo, Kenya and South Africa, and we remember subsequent genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur. But we have to redouble our fight against ongoing atrocities against the Rohingya, the Uyghur and the Kashmiris. Today, in the memory of all those whose lives were unjustly taken, we pledge our solidarity with oppressed peoples across the world and promise to carry forward the flame of resistance against hatred, racism and bigotry. In remembering the true horrors of fascism and the victims of all acts of genocide across the globe, we stand together, united—a light in the darkness—to say, “Never again.”
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Yesterday, International Holocaust Remembrance Day, marked 76 years since the liberation of Auschwitz. It is hard for any of us to comprehend the devastation and complete horror that occurred during the holocaust. By the end of the second world war, 6 million Jewish people—6 million men, women and children—had been murdered by the Nazis. I was particularly struck recently by the words of the chairman of Bradford synagogue, Rudi Leavor, who came to Britain in 1937 aged just 11, after escaping Nazi Germany with his parents and sister. He said:
“The process of their murder was inflicted with insane cruelty. Children were separated from their parents, couples were separated, they were deceived into entering what were described as showers but were in fact gas chambers, made to stand on the edge of wide trenches in which there were already corpses, then shot so that they conveniently fell into those trenches.”
I think we can all agree that those words set out in stark and plain detail the true horror that was the holocaust.
Holocaust Memorial Day provides an opportunity for us all to reflect on our own actions and our collective actions and to consider what more can be done to prevent these horrific events. But, of course, actions speak louder than words. The truth is that we have seen a worrying, creeping rise of the virus of antisemitism across our country in recent years, and we cannot be complacent. A recent report by the Community Security Trust suggested that for the fourth year in a row, the number of antisemitic incidents in Britain has increased.
It is incumbent on every single one of us in this House, no matter what political party we are in or how long we have been here, to do everything it takes to ensure that nothing like this can ever happen again. As we speak in this debate today, we have in the forefront of our minds the terrible reports that are coming out of western China, where the Uyghur population is being persecuted—reports of forced sterilisation of Uyghur women, high levels of surveillance and forced labour—and what is happening in Kashmir. We must use debates such as this to remember, but also to talk about current issues.
Fundamentally, I believe that this comes down to education. Our schools can play an important role, and I am pleased that many of our young people across the country are learning about these horrific events, so that we can ensure that appropriate actions are taken as we go forth. I am sure that the permanent holocaust memorial and education centre right next to Parliament will play a crucial role in ensuring that we all consistently remember as we come into this place.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
It is an honour to take part in this Holocaust Memorial Day debate and to hear the many moving and memorable contributions. Like many Members, I have heard, read about and known about the holocaust for a lifetime—a lifetime denied to many millions. I only now recognise that reading Anne Frank’s diary as a child was perhaps instrumental in awakening that part of my political motivation that is about fighting discrimination, racism and injustice. It prompted me to ask questions, and I am proud to say that the answers my parents offered left no doubt about the wrong that they believed had been done and how easily it could have been them. Those questions meant that I read everything I could, watched every documentary and listened to every survivor account in a search not for information about what had happened but some understanding of how that evil had been nurtured and allowed to grow.
As an adult, I visited Anne Frank’s house in Amsterdam with my own daughter, and was shocked afresh at the conditions in which her family had been forced to exist in order to avoid being murdered simply for who they were. I have also visited Yad Vashem in Israel and listened to the heartbreaking tales of those who survived, but I have never yet been able to face visiting any of the concentration camps. But I will—because of what I am thinking about today, because of what we in this place must do, and because I remember a photograph on the wall in Anne Frank’s house that has stuck with me. It was a picture of, of all things, the young Princess Elizabeth. I remember looking at it and wondering why—thinking, “What was its significance?” Perhaps its significance was that the knowledge that there were good people in other parts of the world fighting a war that might end the horror that they were enduring gave them hope and provided a light in their unimaginable darkness.
We all continue to share a responsibility, not only for those whose lives and loved ones were stolen in the holocaust, but for those who suffer now—today. They suffer the indignity and cruelty of being forced to kneel on railway platforms in China before being boarded on to trains and transported to camps. The echoes of the holocaust in those pictures were evident to us all. I pay tribute to the Board of Deputies of British Jews for leading the calls for action to protect the Uyghur Muslims. We must all listen to them. We must act and ensure that the lessons of the holocaust are never forgotten, its horrors not repeated again in our lifetimes, and the light of remembrance never ever allowed to dim.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) [V]
Although I myself am not a Jew but a Catholic, there is Jewish blood in each and every one of us. I would certainly have been proud to have been born a Jew, and I stand shoulder to shoulder with our local Jewish community at the Southend and Westcliff Hebrew Congregation, the Southend and District Reform synagogue and the recently arrived Hassidic Jews. Over the past two years, these people, who are my friends, have felt very vulnerable. I would like the Government to continue to support the work of the Community Security Trust, which does vital work to keep the Jewish community safe through the protective security grant.
I simply do not understand and have never understood antisemitism. The most important lesson from the holocaust is that although we cannot police the world, it is simply not acceptable to stand by and do and say nothing when genocide happens. For evil to prevail, all it needs is for good people to remain silent. I therefore support the genocide amendment to the Trade Bill. We should not be supporting genocide in any form—whether against the Jewish community, the Uyghurs or anyone else—and should instead be encouraging countries to improve their human rights records.
Each year, a tree-planting event is planned in Southend to commemorate the lives of those who died in the holocaust and more recent genocides. I am very much involved in that event, and have also had the great honour to lay a wreath and plant a tree at Yad Vashem. For two years I campaigned to have a statue of Raoul Wallenberg placed outside the Western Marble Arch synagogue, and Sigmund Sternberg led the fundraising campaign. Through the Schutz-Pass, Raoul Wallenberg saved the lives of 100,000 Jews in Hungary. It was one of the proudest moments of my life when in 1997 Her Majesty the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh and the President of Israel unveiled that statue. Although most of us mere mortals would not be able to replicate such valour, if Holocaust Memorial Day is anything, it is a time to honour such bravery and for each and every one of us, particularly in Parliament, to condemn antisemitism and genocide.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) and the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for securing today’s debate. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on prevention of genocide and crimes against humanity, I join colleagues on both sides of the House in taking a moment to pause, despite all that is happening around us right now, and reflect on and remember the greatest crime in history.
I pay tribute to the work of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Aegis Trust for their action on education and prevention in my constituency, across the country and around the world. We must never forget that we must use our power and responsibility as parliamentarians to ensure this never happens again. Unfortunately, and to our great shame, “never again” has become time and time again in the 76 years since the liberation of Auschwitz. At this very moment, as we have this debate, genocide and crimes against humanity are taking place all over the world, against the Uyghurs, the Rohingya, the Yazidis and more recently, the Tigrayan people in western Ethiopia. Genocide Watch now considers Ethiopia to be at genocide stage 9 out of 10: extermination.
Well-meaning words and statements will only get us so far, but as parliamentarians we must go further. What can we do? We can be assertive—braver at calling out genocides and crimes against humanity. Our second tool is accountability. We have to hold the Government to account on how they monitor, respond to and prevent atrocities. We can call for more training for our civil servants around the world to spot signs early and report them before atrocities take place.
We can also show political leadership. Our Executive need to lead from the front, and one thing they could be doing is reporting annually to Parliament on an at-risk register—a list of countries in relation to crimes against humanity, to stop them before they become genocide. We would do well to follow the example of the United States in that regard. In 2018, Congress passed the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act, which called for a government-wide atrocity prevention strategy. We should look into that.
On our language, we must set our own house in order to combat antisemitism and discriminatory and dehumanising language in everything we say. We should increase our offer of sanctuary for victims of terror and for child refugees from around the world. I invite all Members to join the all-party parliamentary group on prevention of genocide. On this Holocaust Memorial Day, we remember the 6 million Jews and other victims of Nazi persecution, and we say that genocide does not start with genocide; it starts with the denial of rights. I say “Never again”.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in what is a very important debate. It is very clear that all sides of the House believe that antisemitism is both repugnant and repulsive. Following on from my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), anyone who is a denier has no place in this modern society. Their voices should be silenced, and they should go and have a look at themselves in the mirror.
I will talk about a personal experience. I went to Yad Vashem with my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) and laid a wreath. It was when I was there that I thought about meine oma, who was born in the late 1920s under Nazi Germany rule and grew up under a Nazi Germany education system. As soon as that war ended, she fled to this country to start again. Even though it is a topic, as Members can imagine, that is not spoken about around the dining room table, I can see in her eyes the pain, the shame and the sorrow she feels for having been a part of a nation—by birth, not by belief—that committed one of the greatest atrocities known to human history. Sadly she lies very unwell at this moment in time, but she asked me today to stand in this House and simply say sorry for her for being a member of that nation and maybe not having the courage that she wished she had to send the fight back against that evil Nazi regime.
I spent eight and a half years as a schoolteacher, and it never ceased to amaze me that when we talked about the holocaust, it was one of the very few topics where I could hear a pin drop in the classroom. Students understand the importance of this subject and that we need to know our history to learn from it and ensure that we do not allow such atrocities to happen again. While we sadly see acts of genocide taking place in China against the Muslim population, we also crimes against humanity in places such as Kashmir. It is for us as parliamentarians to step up and make sure that global Britain, which I am a huge believer in, takes its rightful place in bringing together nations and leaders from around the world to find an end to these disgusting and awful crimes.
I would like to take one last moment to refer to my predecessor, Ruth Smeeth. She suffered repugnant and repulsive antisemitic abuse, and she still continues to receive it to this day. I thank her for having the courage of her convictions and beliefs to always stand up for who she is. I will continue that fight while I am in this place, to be her voice and champion on this very cause. To anyone who continues to give her such abuse, you are not a valued citizen of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I, too, am pleased to take part in this most significant debate today and I pay tribute to those who succeeded in bringing this again to the Floor of the House.
Like many Members over the years, I have visited Auschwitz. It was some years ago, as part of a visit organised by the Holocaust Educational Trust with schoolchildren from my constituency. I pay particular tribute to the HET and its chief executive Karen Pollock for doing such amazing work in this area. It was, for me, a day that I will never ever forget. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) spoke a few minutes ago about the impact of seeing the photographs of the then Princess Elizabeth at Anne Frank’s house. For me in Auschwitz, it was not a single photograph but in the hall at the end of the visit where there is pinboard after pinboard after pinboard of photographs that were taken from the wallets of those who had been taken to the camp, exactly the sort of photograph that I carried of my own family in my wallet at the time and which we all doubtless do. It was at that point that one understood the sheer enormity and human cost of what had been perpetrated there.
It is absolutely right that we should have this debate today as an act of remembrance, but I would say that to ensure that we properly honour the memory of those who were murdered in the holocaust, we in this House and elsewhere have a duty to redouble our efforts to ensure that this never happens again to the Jewish people or to any other people in any other part of the world.
Today, I want to pay particular tribute to the British Jewish community for all that they have done when confronted with what they have seen happening in Xinjiang province to the Uyghur Muslim population. The Jewish News in particular has taken a brave and courageous stand. Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis spoke powerfully this week about the resonances that he, as a Jewish man, could see from Xinjiang province of what his own people suffered in Europe in the 1940s. They were powerful words to which we should listen and pay the most careful attention.
What happened at Auschwitz and elsewhere in the 1940s came, at the end of the war, as a surprise and certainly as a shock to many people, but we now live in a very different age where information travels around the world much more easily than it ever did. Nobody will ever be able to say that they did not know what was happening in Xinjiang province and that they did not know what was happening to the Uyghur Muslims. We cannot now look round, while at the same time paying tribute to those who have perished.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
To be number 73 on the list and to be able to make a contribution is quite an achievement, so thank you for getting me in, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I am very pleased to make a contribution in the holocaust debate on man’s barbarity to man. I am a pro-Israeli person and as a Christian I want to speak up for the Jewish nation. I also declare an interest as chair of the all-party group for international freedom of religion or belief for those with Christians beliefs, other beliefs and no beliefs. I am also my party’s spokesperson on human rights and chair of the all-party group on Pakistani religious minorities.
When we think of this debate—I have spoken at every one there has been in Westminster since my time of coming here—and 6 million Jews murdered owing to man’s hatred, we think it can never happen again. There would not be an occasion when the tears do not well in our eyes whenever we look at the programmes on TV or check the contributions in the press even here in Northern Ireland. Today’s debate reminds us never to forget the horrors of the shoah, but we should also reflect on more recent events and our reactions to them. My constituency had many of the Kindertransport children who came across during the second world war, and some of them stayed and married and their relatives are still an important part of our life here. The Millisle farm in my constituency is very much a part of that.
I want to speak about the IHRA definition of antisemitism. It was announced in December 2016 that the Government had adopted that definition, but only last year the Secretary of State for Education highlighted the fact that only a handful of universities had adopted the definition. Also, I say respectfully that Members of this House promoted the Palestine Solidarity Campaign lobby day in December, actively promoting an antisemitic trope—that Israel is an apartheid state—given as an example by the IHRA, but this House did nothing. If there is no penalty for breaching the IHRA definition, its adoption is worthless. If we have learned nothing from the past, we can be certain that it will be repeated. This cannot and must not be allowed to happen.
Genocide has been repeated in other areas. We think of the Uyghur Muslims in China, the Baha’i in Iran, Falun Gong in China and the Rohingyas. This morning, I and other hon. Members had the opportunity to get more information about West Papua in Indonesia, where thousands of people have been murdered and thousands more displaced. Also, Christians all over the world are affected, including in Kashmir and in Russia, where human rights and civil liberties are trampled on directly by Governments. So we say that this must never be repeated, and today we have an opportunity to say clearly that we stand with all those people across the world, to be that voice for the voiceless, to speak up for them whenever they cannot do so, and to remember all those who died in the second world war.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We are now coming to the Front-Bench contributions, and we are putting the clock on for the obvious reason that the internal clocks here are not right. This is just for the aid of those making Front-Bench contributions.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]
It is a privilege to speak in this debate and I have been very struck by the contributions from across the House. This is one of the most important dates in the parliamentary calendar because of the importance of understanding exactly what happened during the holocaust and what continues to happen in genocides around the world and, as the theme for this year’s debate would have it, to “be the light in the darkness”. Light is much needed during these difficult times. We need to be mindful that, along with the many obvious challenges and worse that living through a pandemic brings, there is also the fact that it makes everything more fragile. Democracy and the normal strands of life that hold us all together are all the more fragile because of the strains of the pandemic. That means that we have to be ever more watchful, mindful and vocal. As the wonderful girls of the Giffnock Guides, who I visited on a Zoom screen recently, emphasised to me, we must look out for each other, and be kind.
It is my great privilege to represent the majority of the Jewish population in Scotland, as the MP for East Renfrewshire. The diversity of my small community makes us so much the better and is so valued by those of who live here, and the light that some of my fellow East Renfrewshire citizens have shone on the holocaust has been so important. I know the House will join me in expressing my sorrow on hearing of the death last week of Judith Rosenberg of Giffnock. Judith survived the horrors of Auschwitz, where she was taken when she was snatched away at only 22 from her perfectly ordinary family life. She endured indescribable horror and inhumanity, but somehow had the strength of character to share her experience with others so as to help to prevent this from happening again. She said:
“When I was a child, my father taught me that all people are equal, that it doesn’t matter who or what race they are, they are just people.”
Judith worked so hard to make that a reality, and I know that her tireless work made a huge difference to so many people. She will be much missed.
Henry Wuga and his late wife Ingrid also hold a very dear place in the hearts of so many people in my local area and far beyond. Ingrid, who was a lovely woman, was also a remarkable influence on so many people. She sadly died last year, and I know we would all wish to share our condolences with Henry, a fellow Kindertransport child, with whom she spent 75 years of happy marriage and a remarkable joint commitment to sharing their testimony with thousands of schoolchildren. I have had the privilege to see some of that work at first hand, and I know the impact that Henry and Ingrid have had, sharing with kindness, clarity and decency the terrible horrors of the Holocaust and the need to challenge prejudice and hate. I know that the House will also share my great admiration of Henry as he continues with this work.
We all need to understand the horror of this murder of millions and millions of innocent people. There were more Jews murdered than the entire population of Scotland. The lessons in that for us all bear repeating again and again. That is why the work of organisations such as the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Holocaust Educational Trust matters so much. I am very grateful to Karen Pollock, who is tireless in pursuing ways to engage our young people. I met my local education director last week and discussed the wide range of important work going on in East Renfrewshire schools to make sure that, at every stage in education, young people confront, understand and learn the lessons of what happened. This is not, and must not be, a one-day-a-year endeavour.
It is sadly true that this is probably more important now than ever, in this fractious, anxious time, when covid and the shadow of Trump and others loom large, fostering the othering, the hate, the misinformation and creating fertile ground for those with ill intent. None of us should kid ourselves that this cannot happen now. We need to raise our eyes across the world, as well as looking at ourselves. My constituent, Kirsty Robson, along with Jaya Pathak and Joe Collins, young people who have set up the excellent organisation Yet Again, know this and have been working hard to shine a light and to tackle the terrible realities of communities experiencing genocide today, such as the Uyghur Muslim population in China. I am really grateful for their recent focus on the surely inarguable fact that we should not engage in trade deals with nations engaged in genocide.
The young people in East Renfrewshire are very focused on these issues. Holly Edgar, influenced by the Gathering the Voices project, wrote a hugely thought-provoking piece about her visit to Auschwitz, which I published on my website this week, reflecting on the Lessons from Auschwitz project. That focus on all these voices, the individual people and what happened to them is so important—the terrible, all-consuming hatred whipped up against communities, persecuted and murdered because they were Jewish, Roma, gay, disabled, different. That must be a warning from history to us all, and we must have no truck with deniers and minimisers.
I visited Yad Vashem, the World Holocaust Remembrance Centre, a few years ago. The focus there is on all those individual people, families, photos of lovely children, ordinary-looking mums and dads, killed because they were different or other, and what I saw there will never leave me. There were so many little everyday things, including combs, shoes, glasses—that was all that was left. I saw the sheer ordinariness of the things, the people, and then how the creeping hatred and antisemitism spilled over, and the unimaginable horror that followed.
So we need to commit, and we must always focus on being the light. I will conclude by reflecting on the words of Jane Haining, who is a personal hero of mine. Jane was a Scottish teacher, working in Budapest at the time of the holocaust. She stood with her Jewish students in the darkest of times. Jane died in Auschwitz because she refused to leave her students to face their fate alone. She said:
“If these children need me in days of sunshine, how much more do they need me in days of darkness”.
That is the light that we need to think about. That is the spirit that we need to reflect on. It is an issue for all of us, and we need to step up.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
The House has made it clear today in this very important debate why future generations must know the history of the holocaust. I congratulate the very large number of Members on both sides on their extraordinarily moving contributions; there were too many, unfortunately, to refer to individually. I also congratulate the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust for the quite remarkable ceremony online last night.
Like many Members across the House, I have also joined a group of students from my constituency on a visit to Auschwitz, and I thank the Holocaust Educational Trust for organising that. We walked in the shadow of the words, “Arbeit macht frei”, tracing the footsteps of millions who walked to an unspeakably brutal death. We stood on the railway tracks where the cattle wagons unloaded their human cargo and where a Nazi doctor selected those who would live and those who would die. We walked through rooms packed with the remains of human lives—shoes, human hair, children’s tiny clothes and toys. The lessons of history could not be starker, more painful or more necessary for a new generation.
I thank, too, Labour Friends of Israel for taking me to Jerusalem, where, like many other Members, I toured Yad Vashem, Israel’s remarkable museum of the shoah, which catalogues the hatred and demonisation that led humanity into the abyss. The great tragedy is, as many Members have said, that we still have not learned the lessons of the holocaust; genocides happened again in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur, and against the Yazidi, Rohingya and Uyghurs. We see time and again where hatred leads humanity, and it is why all of us have a duty to call out bigotry wherever we find it.
I wish to acknowledge the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), because I share her horror at having realised after 2015 that antisemites had entered the Labour party, intent on infecting our party with their poison. As the Equality and Human Rights Commission report has shown us, our party was too slow to act. My friend, Dame Louise Ellman, a most distinguished former Member of this House, was subjected to the most aggressive antisemitic abuse by some members of her own local party, who demonised her for the wrongs of a foreign Government. A measure of our party’s recovery will be when Louise and the others who were driven out feel able to rejoin the party they grew up in and to which they gave so much.
My small contribution during that time was to help establish the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, which runs an operation to identify, expose and disable online antisemitism. The project targets antisemitic extremism on the far left and far right, but where it identified antisemites who had become Labour party members, we reported them immediately for expulsion. When we identified how antisemites were operating online, we proposed legislative change, engaging with both the Government and the Jewish community leadership. I look forward to the online harms Bill bringing forward necessary new safeguards into law.
Labour’s new leader made clear in his acceptance speech last April his determination to root out antisemitism and make our party a safe space for Jewish people to be members of and to vote for once more. We understand the hurt that antisemitism has caused to the Jewish community and we will continue to work closely with and listen to the community as we seek to heal that pain. With the support of the Leader of the Opposition, I have asked every Labour council to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism, with all the examples. We have backed the Secretary of State’s request for universities to do the same, and we support the establishment of the holocaust memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens, right next to this place, the heart of British democracy.
I wish to finish with a story of hope. My friend and constituent Eric Sanders is 101 years old. As far as I know, he is the oldest living member of the Labour party. Eric was born to a Jewish family in Austria in 1919. Growing up, he experienced at first hand anti-Jewish hatred, and restrictions on where he could learn, work and go, and on whom he could love. He watched, personally, Adolf Hitler drive into Vienna after the Anschluss that incorporated Austria into the Nazi Third Reich. Eric came here to Britain, where he joined our armed forces to fight for freedom. After the war, he settled in south London, became a teacher, married a young woman and started a family. Today, Eric is a father, a grandfather and a great-grandfather. He tells me how very proud he was to be awarded the Decoration of Honour by the President of Austria—that country’s highest civil award—just a few years ago. That act of recognition after the wrongs he suffered has allowed Eric finally to make his peace with the country of his birth. Just days before his hundredth birthday, I took a group of Austrian university students to meet Eric at his home in Norbury in south London. It was so moving to see a new generation of Austrians talking with a Jewish member of an older generation about what had happened to him and so many others in their country.
Eric would be the first to say that his story is now mostly in the past, but his story will not end with him if it inspires a future generation to build a better world. Today, as we reflect on the horrors of the holocaust, let us recognise that that anguished cry of 6 million voices from the past is our calling to build a better future, and in that, let us come together and find our light in the darkness.
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
I start by adding my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) and all those Members who secured this afternoon’s debate, including the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), whose personal bravery and courage in combating antisemitism I think we all admire in this House.
Yesterday, I was honoured to speak at the annual Holocaust Memorial Day ceremony honouring millions of Jewish people and other victims of Nazi persecution. Like thousands of people from across our country, I then lit a candle in their memory, joining them to be the light in the darkness, the theme of this year’s commemorations.
As it is for many others, the holocaust is part of my family’s story, but it is a universal human tragedy as much as a personal one—a tragedy from which we can all learn something. In doing so, we must draw on the power of the testimony of holocaust survivors. As many Members have said today, it is one of the greatest privileges to meet them. We need to ensure that their stories endure and are understood by us and by future generations.
We have heard today from many Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), about the connections that we draw between the memories of atrocities of the past and those of the present. He can be assured that I have already drawn his powerful call for action to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Metropolitan police war crimes unit.
We remember, as others have said, the subsequent genocides—the millions of victims of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia; the million-plus victims of the Rwandan genocide; the 8,000 Muslim men and boys who were murdered in Srebrenica. We heard powerful first-hand testimony from my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) of those deeply disturbing events within our own lifetime and within the continent of Europe.
It is now more than 75 years since the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. A year ago this week, I accompanied His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to Jerusalem to mark that occasion. I was pleased that subsequently, we were able to make a £1 million donation on behalf of the United Kingdom to the Auschwitz-Birkenau Foundation to ensure that the camp, which many hon. Members have spoken of today, endures as a grim memorial—one of the most unforgettable places that anyone can visit.
It is distressing, but perhaps not entirely surprising, that covid-19 has itself given the hatemongers another excuse to dredge up and repurpose age-old antisemitic tropes, claiming, just as they did as far back as the black death and later, that the Jews were the cause of the virus.
As we have heard in the course of this debate, we see antisemitism everywhere. As my hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) said, we see it most prominently on social media, where, sadly, antisemitic abuse is rife. We see it on our university campuses, and I pay tribute to the fantastic work and bravery of the Union of Jewish Students, which does so much to ensure that Jewish students can enjoy all that university should have to offer.
No realm of public life has escaped the cancer of antisemitism, which is why I am proud that we are the first Government to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism. It is a tool to identify how antisemitism manifests itself in the 21st century, but as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, it is a tool only as useful as our willingness to apply it robustly. I am pleased that nearly three quarters of local councils have responded to our call and adopted it, and I am most grateful for the strong support of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), in that regard.
I was heartened to see the English Premier League adopt the definition, thanks in part to the efforts of the noble Lord Mann, using its fantastic and unique international reach to provide a powerful reminder to those who perpetrate antisemitism in sport around the world. I strongly urge other institutions, councils and universities that have not yet adopted it to do so as quickly as possible. The reluctance of some of our great universities to do so is difficult to explain. It is surely not beyond the wit of our greatest minds and our most liberal institutions to be able to criticise the state of Israel without lapsing into antisemitism. I am pleased that the universities of Oxford and Cambridge agree and have shown the way.
The work of tackling antisemitism will continue, I hope, through a new holocaust memorial and learning centre, which currently awaits the outcome of a planning inquiry. If built, it will be a world-class memorial on our preferred location next to the Palace of Westminster. I thank Lord Pickles and Ed Balls, the co-chairs of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation advisory board, for their fantastic efforts in pushing this project forward. Some of the opposition to the memorial, the inaccurate reporting and, I am afraid to say, the statement we heard earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who knows perfectly well that his argument of partiality was tested at a judicial review and found to be wanting, only focuses our attention and increases our resolve to make sure that the memorial is built within the lifetime of this Parliament. I am grateful that it has received the full support of all living Prime Ministers, the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of the other major political parties and major faiths.
I know that some local residents, including my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West, have concerns about the memorial’s setting. However, I too walk there on a weekend when I am in Westminster, and I take my children to play in the playground. I can never forget that my children are the great grandchildren of holocaust survivors. I want their generation never to go through those horrors, and I want this Parliament to be able to look out upon that new memorial as a lasting reminder and as a source of education and nourishment to future generations.
I am also proud that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government supports holocaust education and remembrance. Like other Members, I pay tribute to Karen Pollock and the Holocaust Educational Trust, and to Olivia Marks-Woldman and her team at Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, both of whom are worthy recipients this year of honours from Her Majesty the Queen. They have done a fantastic job of keeping the flame alight, despite covid-19.
We gather today to fulfil a solemn obligation—an obligation of remembrance, to never allow the memory of those who died in the holocaust to be forgotten. Memory is the constant obligation of all generations. Today we mourn with those who mourn, and we grieve with those who grieve. We pay tribute to those who survived, who all these years have borne witness to that great evil and have served mankind by their example. We honour and remember the memory of all the allied forces who suffered appalling casualties and freed Europe from the grip of tyranny. Today we acknowledge the resilience and strength of Jewish people here in the UK and around the world. Finally, we pay tribute to the memory of those non-Jewish heroes who saved countless lives; those who the people of Israel call the “righteous among the nations”. In an age of indifference, they acted. In an age of fear, they showed courage. Their memory and their example should, like the light in the darkness, kindle a new flame in our hearts to do the same in our time.
Stephen Crabb
In concluding this marvellous, inspiring debate, I thank all 76 Members of this House, drawn from all parties and from all corners of our United Kingdom, who contributed with moving powerful, intelligent and well-informed speeches. I believe that the best of the House is represented by the debates we have on Holocaust Memorial Day, which has become such an important feature of our national life and our parliamentary calendar. The strong commitment shown by all parts of the House this afternoon underlines and reinforces again the deep commitment that there is in this House to ensure that the holocaust has a permanent place in our nation’s collective memory. I am particularly grateful for the contributions from the three Front-Bench speakers at the end of this debate, all of whom spoke extremely well. I was particularly grateful for the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who spoke also very powerfully last night in the national commemorative ceremony and has a deep personal connection to the issue.
It was good to hear the shadow Secretary of State reaffirm his own personal commitment and his party’s commitment to honouring the memory of those who fell during the holocaust by challenging wrong sentiments and challenging prejudices that may still linger in the political party and in this place.
To conclude, I thank everyone who has participated. It is has been a very good debate.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I visited Auschwitz-Birkenau for the first time last year, and I will never forget what I saw there and nor should I. In 2021, we must all remain on our guard and shine that light until the end of time.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Holocaust Memorial Day 2021.
UN International Day of Education
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the UN International Day of Education.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling this important debate so close to the United Nations International Day of Education. After today’s moving debate on Holocaust Memorial Day, I add my tributes to the Holocaust Educational Trust for its crucial work in taking sixth formers to visit Auschwitz-Birkenau. The visit I undertook with students from Hanley Castle High School will remain forever etched in my memory and, importantly, in their young memories. It is vital that such work continues.
I never thought that we would be marking UN International Day of Education at a time when our schools in the UK are closed to so many children. I share the Government’s aspiration to reopen our schools as soon as possible, and would welcome an even earlier date than 8 March, by reopening classes in a staged way, even for part of the day, with reception to year 2 back first, and gradually adding additional classes. Let us also make the most of fresh air and exercise, like the wonderful Forest Schools that so many of the West Worcestershire primary schools enjoy. I welcome the important investment that the Government are making in extra support and catch-up tuition, to help each child make the most of their potential.
Around the world, even before the pandemic, some 258 million children and adolescents were out of school. The majority of them were girls. More than half of 10-year-olds in low and middle-income countries were not learning even to read a simple text. As a result of the pandemic, 1.3 billion children around the world have seen their schools close at some point in the past 12 months. Let me quote:
“Twelve years of full-time education is not the only answer to the world’s problems. It is not a panacea, but it is not far short.”
Those are not my words; those are the words of our Prime Minister when he was Foreign Secretary. He knows that in many of the poorest, most conflict-torn countries, it is mainly girls who drop out of school early, who lag behind boys in literacy levels, and who have children when they too are still children. The Prime Minister continued:
“Female education is the universal spanner,”.
He said it is the “Swiss army knife” that helps tackle so many of the world’s problems, and that
“the best and biggest thing that we can do for the world, is to make sure that every girl gets 12 years of full-time education.”
It is wonderful as we begin 2021 and the UK presides over the G7 that girls’ education has made it on to the agenda. My wonderful colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), has been appointed the Prime Minister’s envoy. The UK’s G7 goal was to secure a commitment to getting 40 million more girls into education and 20 million more girls reading by the age of 10. Here in the UK we are rightly concerned about the importance of laptops for remote education, but we should also not forget the importance of low-tech and simple things, such as exercise books, pencils, chalk, and text books, as well as older technology such as radio, for children around the world who are also having to undergo remote education.
It is wonderful that later in 2021, the UK and Kenya have agreed to co-host the replenishment of the global partnership for education, which is the only multilateral organisation that crowds in funding from richer countries to help education budgets in very poor countries. I wholly endorse the leadership that the Prime Minister and the Government are showing on education globally. A better educated world will be a healthier, more peaceful and more prosperous one, and that surely benefits us all. But that leadership will need bolstering with money from the UK aid budget.
The Minister will know that I oppose the temporary reduction of the overseas development assistance target, as it not only breaks our manifesto commitment, but will mean that there is less money available to tackle hunger, deliver vaccines, educate children in poor countries and make sure they have clean water. I welcome the commitment that the UK has made to the Vaccine Alliance, and the commitment that we have made to doubling international climate finance, but can the Minister reassure the House today that the cut to the aid budget is not going to affect the money spent on education for the world’s poorest children? Will our contribution to the replenishment of the Global Partnership for Education be at least as generous and ambitious as before? Will as many girls as before be helped to remain in school through projects such as the Girls’ Education Challenge? Will she consider launching more UK Aid Match projects so that we can all donate more and have it matched by UK aid? What progress is she making as Minister for the European Neighbourhood and the Americas in encouraging our friends in the US to step up and spend more on global education under the new Biden Administration?
With new vaccines coming on line, we are starting the process of building back better after this awful pandemic, and of levelling up our own country as we recover. We also have a key role to play in building back and levelling up the world by ensuring that every child—both in our country and around the world—gets a quality education, no matter how poor the country into which they are born. That will be the most important way in which we can build a stronger, more resilient and healthier world for our children.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Members will be aware that there is to be a time limit of three minutes per speech for Back Benchers. I know that that is very short, but I must explain that if everybody takes three minutes, not everyone who is on the list will get in. If Members were able to take just a little bit less than three minutes and share out the time equally, everybody would have the chance to speak.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) [V]
Today I will focus on the sustainable development goals, specifically SDG 4 on global education and SDG 5 on gender equality.
Even before the pandemic, 258 million children were out of school, including one in two children with disabilities, more than half of school-age refugee children and 75 million children whose education was disrupted by humanitarian crises. Covid-19 has obviously made everything so much worse. This week, the International Development Committee released a report on the secondary impacts of covid-19, highlighting a global education crisis. With schools shut down and teaching disrupted, decades of progress are at risk. Some 1.6 billion children and young people are suffering educational disruption and are unable to access their basic rights. Over 460 million children are unable to access remote learning while out of school. In addition, as livelihoods are lost, informal economies shrink and remittances from abroad plummet, struggling families are left unable to pay the school fees required in many schools. Unsurprisingly, all this impacts most on the children who are already marginalised: refugees, the internally displaced, children with disabilities, and girls.
This is a gendered crisis. Girls of secondary school age are far less likely to return than boys when the schools reopen. That is already against the backdrop of young women accounting for 59% of the total illiterate youth population. Online and remote learning is insufficient to reach all children during lockdown, as many do not have internet access or mobiles. Covid-19 has heightened economic pressure on family finances, with children forced into child marriage and child labour to help support their families. It increases violence and sexual exploitation, leaving children, particularly girls, to drop out of school permanently—and there are strong links between girls leaving education and subsequent increases in trafficking and exploitation.
With both the presidency of the G7 and the Global Partnership for Education, the Government have two major opportunities to galvanise action and remedy stalled progress towards SDGs 4 and 5. The Government made strong educational pledges before the cuts were announced. I ask the Minister: do those pledges still stand? The UK has still not pledged a penny to the Global Partnership for Education. The Government must pledge big and pledge now. The UK spends a paltry 5.6% of aid on education, and in 2018 just 0.3% was spent on ending violence against women and girls. I commend the Government’s intent on girls’ education, but their aim can only be achieved by increasing gender equality and real financial investment.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
I am hugely honoured to be the UK’s special envoy for girls’ education, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) for her very kind words. My role is to champion globally the Prime Minister’s message that providing every girl on the planet with 12 years’ quality education is the best way of tackling many of the problems facing the world today. Investing in girls’ education is a game changer. A child with a mother who can read is 50% more likely to live beyond the age of five, twice as likely to attend school themselves, and 50% more likely to be immunised. Girls’ education is therefore vital for women and girls, who make up 51% of the population, but it is also vital to levelling up society and developing economies and nations.
Even before covid-19, the world was facing a learning crisis. Tragically, the pandemic has become one of the biggest educational disruptors in our history, affecting 1.6 billion children at its peak in 2020. Many of these children are girls, and many of them will never return to school, or even start school, lowering their chances of future employment and decent livelihoods. To avert this tragedy, we must up our game globally and respond. For the UK, this has begun with leadership from the very top. Our Prime Minister has put 12 years’ quality education for every girl at the very heart of our G7 presidency. Our Foreign Secretary has agreed global targets that include getting one third more girls reading by the age of 10 and 40 million more girls in primary and secondary school by 2025. This year, too, the UK will co-host with Kenya the financing summit for the Global Partnership for Education, working hard with our partners to get the replenishment commitments needed for girls’ education for the next five years.
I know that the weight of the challenge regarding girls’ education is very significant, but our ability to make a change in the world, if we work together, should never be underestimated. The international community must, however, adopt a more ambitious and co-ordinated approach to girls’ education. There needs to be more focus on quality, and on secondary education. We must also listen more carefully to what girls and young women say about what they want and need. Vitally, global leaders need to speak out much more, as our Prime Minister has done, on the importance of educating girls, explaining all the advantages for girls and women, their children, their families, their communities and their nations. Together, if we can make this happen—and I believe we can—the human race will be in a much, much better place.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I apologise to the House and to the hon. Lady; the clocks are simply not working. In case it looks strange, I should tell the House that I have decided to work from my own clock. We will proceed from there.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) [V]
It is right that there is a recognised day to highlight the importance of education internationally. As a former teacher of 23 years’ standing, I am deeply saddened by the current closure of our schools during this pandemic, although I understand why it is necessary. I genuinely feel for all the pupils who have had their learning disrupted. The socialisation that school so uniquely and comprehensively allows them is currently beyond them. Covid has disrupted the education of 1.6 billion students in more than 190 countries, and it is very damaging that they are all being denied their right to quality, safe and inclusive education.
I am sure we all welcomed the UN 2030 agenda for sustainable development, which was adopted by UN member states in 2015 and recognises the importance of education globally, but the goals must be delivered. Giving girls access to schooling is a central part of eradicating global poverty. Better-educated women tend to be healthier, participate more in formal labour markets, have fewer children and marry at a later age. Better-educated women tend to be more informed about nutrition and healthcare, and their children are usually healthier, too. Combined, they are more likely to help to lift countries and communities out of poverty.
Undoubtedly, educating girls strengthens economies and reduces inequality. It contributes to more stable, resilient societies that give all individuals, including men and boys, the opportunity to fulfil their potential. For this to happen, girls must feel safe in schools, which is why the safe schools declaration is so important. Too often, girls in developing countries face barriers to education caused by poverty, cultural norms, poor infrastructure and the threat of violence, so international collaborations between Governments, civil society and a whole range of agencies should and must do better to help to mitigate and overcome these challenges, and the UK aid budget must reflect how important that is.
Even in the UK, schools can be an outlet through which to access richer cultural experiences through literature, poetry and debate, an escape from poverty and an opportunity to work for a better life. That is certainly what school offered me, and so many others. Today, let us celebrate the transformative power of education and vow to ensure that we will do all we can to make sure that the reach of education is truly global, so that we can change the lives of all children—boys and girls—for the better.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We cannot hear Katherine Fletcher. I apologise to the hon. Lady; we will pause and come back to her when we can. Let us go to Taiwo Owatemi in Coventry North West.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) [V]
I am thrilled to be able to commemorate this special day, and extend my thanks to the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) for securing this debate.
“A quality education has the power to transform societies in a single generation; provide children with the protection they need from the hazards of poverty, labour exploitation and disease; and give them the knowledge, skills and confidence to reach their full potential.”
Those were the words of Audrey Hepburn, a very successful actress and even greater humanitarian who was a goodwill ambassador for UNICEF. Those words ring particularly true: education is the key to wider possibilities for young people all around the world.
As one of the sustainable development goals, quality education for all is important for peace, prosperity and global development. Last year, the coronavirus pandemic dealt a crippling blow to young people’s education, and we are currently experiencing a global education crisis. Young people in the United Kingdom have had their education disrupted because of difficult school closures, with those from poorer backgrounds and with disabilities and learning difficulties paying a higher price. The digital divide is further exacerbating the issue, with many students not having access to the technology that they need for remote learning, and many students are being priced out of education, with limited or no internet access whatsoever.
Some 1.6 billion children and young people across the world are having their education disrupted, and children with disabilities and girls are feeling this acutely. Pre covid, 258 million children and young people were already out of school, and with the pandemic now in full swing, it is estimated that more than 20 million girls and half of all refugee girls in secondary school are unlikely to return to schools once they reopen. Girls whose education relied on specialised programmes to keep them in school are at particular risk due to the cuts in global education funding. The UK Government pledged to ensure that 40 million girls receive an education and that 20 million girls will be reading by the age of 10 across the world. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that we meet those targets, especially considering the impact of the coronavirus?
The UK development fund for the education of girls has been in steady decline since 2016. It is well below the international benchmark that donor Governments invest at least 15% of their aid in education. The Minister must let us know whether she plans to raise the aid budget allocated to girls’ education and how she plans to ensure that the UK keeps its commitment. I will end with the words of an African proverb: if you educate a man, you educate an individual, but if you educate a woman, you educate a nation. The United Kingdom must lead the global community in tackling the structural barriers that shut girls out of their learning, exclude them and deprioritise their education.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I am a humbled to be the first man to take part in the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) on her brilliant opening speech, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) on her important new appointment.
There are many interventions we can make to fundamentally change the world. We can ensure that people have clean water. Dirty water and water-borne diseases still kill thousands of children every day. We can vaccinate children, which is a UK priority. In the last Parliament, British taxpayers vaccinated a child in the poor world every two seconds and saved the life of a child in the poor world every two minutes from diseases that, thank goodness, our children do not suffer from today. We can exhort contraception and family planning, allowing women in the poor world to decide whether and when they have children.
But for me, education, and educating girls in particular, is top of the list of ways we can change the world. If we educate a girl, she will almost certainly marry later. She will ensure that she educates her own children. She is likely to be economically active. She will adopt a leadership position in her family and her community, and these women are increasingly seen in national government. The UK has been a leader in this area under both parties, and our Prime Minister eloquently extols the importance of every girl having 12 years of education as a critical way of improving the world. We see in Africa the extraordinary way in which education is valued by parents and children as the ladder out of poverty. They walk so far every day to get an education and wrap their textbooks in the brown paper that shows their value.
When so many children cannot go to school here and in the poorest, most deprived parts of the world, this is not a time for Britain to renege on its promise to the poorest through the 0.7%. Every Member of this House was elected on a promise to stand by the 0.7%. It is just 1% of the debt we have racked up this year. The 0.7% is already reduced by nearly £3 billion, because gross national income has gone done so much this year. If these cuts persist, it will mean that 1.6 million fewer children go to school, 12.6 million of the poorest women in the world will not have access to contraception, 3.4 million starving and hungry people will not get humanitarian support, 9.3 million children will not get vaccinated and 6.3 million who would previously have got access to clean water and sanitation will not get it.
If the Government try to protect one or more of those areas, the effect on the others will be even worse. It is a dismal start to the UK’s presidency of the G7 to cut this budget, when we have seen the United States increase its aid spending as a priority just this week. We know from the pandemic that we will not be safe here until we are safe everywhere. It is a terrible mistake to cut the 0.7%, and I urge the Government to think again.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We are now going back to Katherine Fletcher.
Katherine Fletcher [V]
Education is the route to changing the world and people’s lives for the better. That is a stark statement, but it is true. On this International Day of Education, I reflect on my family’s journey and how much they valued school and learning. Back in the 1930s, in back-to-back terraced Manchester, my grandma was made to leave school at 12 and go to work in a shirt factory, missing her education. She has passed through my family a fierce appreciation of the power and opportunity that education can give. My grandma, my mum and me have all benefited a little bit in each generation from education.
You will notice, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is all women in that story, and that speaks to another truth. Education for women and girls is vital—vital for community advancement out of poverty; vital for the environmental stewardship of our planet; and vital for the health of individuals and families.
I was recently honoured to be appointed as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Mozambique, reconnecting with old friends and making new ones. Along with our excellent high commissioner, NneNne Iwuji-Eme, and her team, the UK’s focus on mutually beneficial trade is underpinned by another commitment of the Prime Minister: namely, our pledge to work so that all girls across the world get 12 years of quality education. For some communities in Mozambique, Africa and around the world, educating girls empowers women, helps lift communities out of poverty, fights back against violence against women and girls, and helps build bounce-back ability to today’s global challenges, such as the covid pandemic or the awful recent storms and flooding in southern Africa—I am thinking of you. My friends in Africa have all the skills and attitude to make things happen. It is a brave man or woman who tries to tell Mama Jay or Mama Patricia or Princess that they do not need an education or that they cannot start their own business or lead large teams of people—good luck with that, because those ladies are in charge. My grandma was like those African women, my friends. They have all the brains and skills, but less than 12 years of good education. In the 21st century, it should not take generations for women and girls to access what they need and set themselves up for life. This Government have rightly prioritised a pledge to work with the world to make that happen, and I personally pledge support, with my new friends in Mozambique, through all my actions, and to help them benefit in the same way that my family has done for generations.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
I congratulate the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) on securing this important debate, and I pay tribute to the Members who have already spoken for their contributions. As others have pointed out, the immediate health and economic emergencies of the pandemic have demanded a great deal of Government attention and parliamentary debate across the world, yet it is important to note too the devastating impact that covid-19 has had on children and young people.
The widespread disruption to education offers the most obvious example of the challenges that young people have had to endure. Over 1.6 billion students globally have faced disruption. They face months of uncertainty and prolonged periods without seeing friends and the luxury of some normality. Hon. Members are right to raise concerns about the consequences of this disruption on children’s learning, and I fear that the long-identified link between poor attainment and poverty will have been further exacerbated by the digital divide. Just as worrying is the impact that the disruption of the past year has had on young people’s wellbeing.
Now, I of course understand that this disruption to their education and their lives was sadly unavoidable in the UK, and I would like to take this opportunity to extend my gratitude to our young people, their parents, teachers and lecturers for the extraordinary resilience that they have shown over the past year. In return, I think we have an obligation to play our part. Here in the UK, we should ensure that the support packages that are in place to support families through the crisis are maintained. To prevent an entire generation losing out on education, I believe we must be prepared to spend whatever it takes to ensure that schools, colleges and universities have the resources and flexibility necessary to allow our young people to catch up on any tuition that they have lost over the past year.
Then there are those skills and experiences found beyond the classroom, which are more difficult to quantify but are just as invaluable. Youth organisations and outdoor educational centres have always played a key part in this regard—places such as the Llangrannog Urdd camp in my constituency—and they need financial support now so that they are ready to open and return to capacity as soon as restrictions can be lifted safely.
I draw a comparison between children in the UK and internationally, because although children across the world have seen their education and lives disrupted, at least children in the UK can expect efforts to be made to make up for the past year. We can be confident that we have the means necessary to achieve all this for children in the UK. The same is not true for other countries. When we consider that globally 265 million children and adolescents do not have the opportunity to attend a complete formal education, it seems clear to me that we have a duty to help. Therefore, the decision to reduce the UK’s aid spending must be reversed if we are to play our part in the global effort to secure equitable access to education for all.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) [V]
I am very proud to co-sponsor this debate on the United Nations International Day of Education, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) on securing this important debate.
First, I welcome the important steps that the Government have taken to support education in the United Kingdom and throughout the world. In his first speech as Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend committed to ensuring that all girls receive 12 years of quality education, and that is something with which I fully agree. The Prime Minister also announced £515 million to help get more than 12 million children into school in some of the poorest countries in the world. This week, I took part in an evidence session as a member of the International Development Committee, and I was very pleased to hear the Foreign Secretary reiterate the Government’s intention to continue to use UK aid to support girls’ education. It is an important step in ensuring a better, more prosperous and fairer future for all of us.
This week, I have also been part of the United Kingdom’s delegation to the Council of Europe. From discussions with our European partners on the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, on which I sit, it is clear to me that we must continue to work together to tackle the issues that cause people to become displaced. It is also a matter that many of my constituents take a keen interest in, through groups such as Stafford Welcomes Refugees. It is important to remember that when children have sadly been displaced, they must still continue to be educated. That has never been more clear to me than when I visited the Malala school in Lebanon with Save the Children. Malala herself is a leading example of how education can transform people’s lives, and I was honoured to visit the school to see at first hand how UK aid is being used to educate displaced Syrian girls. The school will help to ensure that a generation of girls is not being lost, thanks to the education they are receiving from British teachers. In the future, they will be able to return to Syria and become its future teachers and doctors.
That point is why it is critical that this summer the UK and Kenya are due to host the Global Partnership for Education replenishment summit. The GPE has a shared commitment to ending the world’s learning crisis and is the largest global fund dedicated to transforming education in lower-income countries. Since 2015, the UK has supported more than 15.5 million children overseas to gain a decent education. With the UK set to hold that key summit this year and host the G7 in 2021, there has never been a better time for us to champion education. We should use our role in global Britain to ensure that the UN sustainable development goal on quality education is always achieved.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]
I congratulate the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) on securing this important debate and thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. We mark this International Day of Education in a year like no other. More than half of the world’s student population still face significant disruption to their education. This year we have been outraged by the number of British children who cannot learn from home. More than ever, it has become clear that access to the internet and, more importantly, the information it carries, should be a right as much as clean running water. This emergency extends far beyond our UK borders. The scale of the education emergency is almost impossible to comprehend. At least a third of the world’s schoolchildren have been unable to access remote learning at all during the school closures. According to UNICEF data, three quarters of children not reached by remote learning globally live in the poorest households or rural areas.
The consequences of that are far-reaching. It means that more children will be forced into child marriage or child labour. It may also mean more children permanently dropping out of education altogether. It is one of the great injustices of our times, and there will not be a vaccine that will immediately fix it. In the year when the UK has the presidency of the G7, we are also hosting COP26. The eyes of the world are looking to us to lead. The Foreign Secretary has said that girls’ education is a core priority for the Government. That is a laudable aim and one that I fully support. The thing is, though, the official development assistance allocations released on Tuesday paint a slightly different picture. The Government’s proposed cut in aid to 0.5% of gross national income, counter to their manifesto promises, comes on top of a year-on-year decline in the share of aid budget allocated to education.
I heard just this week that the budget for education in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is to halve. I would like to know whether that is true, but it is worth looking at this year’s figures. A total of 5.6% of our development budget is currently spent on education. That is well below the 15% international benchmark. Halving that would be very short-sighted and, frankly, a scandal.
The UK must lead in the creation of the global education plan. The fact that so far nothing has been pledged, despite our hosting that summit in the summer, flies in the face of the Government’s own policies. I urge our country to pledge the £600 million to the Global Partnership for Education, as suggested by the Send My Friend to School campaign. There is, of course, the climate crisis and the two are linked. Many studies have shown that investing in education is one of the best ways of tackling the climate crisis. There is no better way for us to make a difference in this world than investing in education, and I urge the Government to do exactly that today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The hon. Lady has exceeded her time. I call Kim Johnson.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]
I too welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate today. Covid-19 is steadily turning the global learning crisis into a catastrophe, both at home and abroad. Existing inequalities are widening at a terrifying rate, threatening to leave behind a lost generation and undo decades of progress.
Currently, 1.6 billion children and young people globally are suffering from educational disruption, risking the future of the world’s most marginalised children, and this is particularly so for girls and children with disabilities. Educational development enriches society and minds. It could be a lifeline to those from disadvantaged backgrounds and it paves the way to a thriving, more enriched and liberated society for all to enjoy and to prosper in.
Even before the coronavirus, UNESCO estimated that 258 million children and young people were out of school around the world, and millions more were attending school but not learning the basics. Once again, I ask the Minister to commit to uphold the current aid commitment of 0.7% of gross national income, at a time when coronavirus is throwing decades of progress on poverty, healthcare and education into reverse. Not to do so is a dangerous decision for millions of the poorest people around the world. We have a moral responsibility to support them.
These cuts are most likely to effect the children who are already the most marginalised, impacting support for refugees and the internally displaced, supported children with disabilities and specialist programmes to keep girls in school, and displacement from climate change due to crop failure and famine. Natural disasters and conflict over resources is another key disruption to education. Those displaced face significant barriers, including saturated school capacity, destroyed infrastructure, linguistic barriers and discrimination.
Pushing ahead with further cuts to our aid budget, this Government are yet again turning their back on those most in need. If covid has taught us one thing, it is that we have responsibility for each other. It is a recognition that, when children in one country are left without an education, we all are poorer as a result. Education is the defining factor in building a fairer, more prosperous society. It is the foundation for building a better future with global development, peace and prosperity at its heart. It is a power to change lives. Will the Government take the opportunity today to demonstrate global leadership in their commitments to funding education for those most vulnerable, marginalised and desperate children in conflict and crisis settings by increasing their aid allocation to education to 15%, and will they utilise our position as president of the G7 and COP26 to encourage other donors to step up and increase their funding too?
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) for securing this incredibly important debate.
This global pandemic has exposed many inadequacies and inequalities in education, not only in our country but around the world. From access to computers and broadband to a supportive environment, disparities have been replicated in every country. Teachers have had to adapt and be creative, often having to learn new skills—especially digital ones—very quickly. I salute every single teacher and member of support staff in every school.
Education is the major way out of poverty, and I fear that covid will have a long-term impact on the next generation if substantial measures are not introduced quickly. Some young people will be of an age when it appears more productive for the family to have their children out working rather than being educated, especially if they have lost income during the pandemic.
Governments and international organisations must put financial and other help in place to encourage pupils back to school, because if they do not return, it will cast a long shadow over the economic wellbeing not just of the individual but of the whole country. A recent OECD report states that if they miss one third of the school year, primary and secondary schoolchildren can expect their income to be some 3% lower over their entire lifetime. Providing information to parents and children about the benefits that education will bring them in the long term is crucial.
However, this crisis has also brought an opportunity for education systems to look at different ways of teaching, innovating, and changing assessment and examination systems. Sustainable development goal 4 was set to provide
“inclusive and equitable quality education and...lifelong learning opportunities for all.”
We need systemic reform of our education system here in England as much as we do in other countries, and we need to learn from each other about good practice and pedagogy, adjusted to our individual countries. We need to realign the curriculum, assessment and examinations, and move away from a system that helps elite students and towards actual skill distribution to the entire student population. The UK Government’s White Paper on skills is an example that can be shared.
Countries must embrace a new vision of education for the future. If remote learning has taught us one thing, it is that e-learning can be harnessed if there is decent connectivity, and the right software can be highly cost-effective and help with knowledge and lifelong learning. It must be a priority for all Governments to improve access to technology and the connectivity of their populations, to address the glaring disparities that have come from those who have not had access to online learning.
We should see this crisis as a catalyst for sustainable and innovative reform, at the same time as building the foundation for greater resilience and sustainability in education. I hope that all Governments will seize this opportunity.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
There will be three more speeches from the Back Benches and then I am afraid we will have to go directly to the wind-ups.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) [V]
I congratulate the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) on securing this important debate.
Education is essential to eradicating global poverty, achieving every child’s potential and achieving the global goals. Girls’ education is especially neglected, and it too is essential. We can all agree on that, but one crucial element of education is often overlooked. By underfunding that element, not asking whether schools have it and not giving it priority in educational terms, we are letting down another generation and holding back the post-covid opening of schools.
So what is this magic but missing educational ingredient? It is WASH: water, sanitation—toilets—and hygiene education. Cleaning has become a major part of covid control in schools here in the UK, and it is no different around the world, yet I went to many schools before covid that had very few toilets or sinks and very little soap. Teachers are doing a great job of struggling on, but their educational facilities mean that girls miss school every month because they cannot manage their period at school, and many children with disabilities cannot go to school because there are no toilets accessible for them.
Half of all schools globally do not have soap and water available to students, 620 million pupils do not have decent school toilets, and every year, diarrhoea and intestinal infections together kill nearly 140,000 school-age children. Poor WASH in the first years of life is closely linked to chronic malnutrition, leading to stunting, which then leads to long-term effects in the development and learning potential of children.
Opening schools safely when it is covid-safe to do so is an urgent priority, but clean water, toilets and hygiene are essential to enable that. A school without those is not a safe environment. I urge the Government not to cut the 0.7% aid budget, and I urge the Government, the Minister and all Members to keep asking, “What about WASH?” in every discussion about education. This summer, the UK will co-host the Global Partnership for Education funding summit, with Kenya, and there will be a particular focus on getting girls to school. That is very welcome, but we need to have ambitious amounts of money dedicated by the Government—civil society is calling for £600 million—and for ensuring that WASH investment is a part of that as well. Facilities must be inclusive and accessible, and ensure privacy, safety and dignity. So I hope to hear this addressed in the Minister’s response today to this crucial question for global education: what about WASH?
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) [V]
As a governor at a special school in Dudley, I saw many of the challenges faced by highly skilled and dedicated teachers in providing top-quality education to children with learning disabilities, even in a country with all the advantages of the United Kingdom. But I also saw the incredible difference the school made to those children and to their families, not only to their education, but to their social and emotional development, and to tackling barriers and inequality.
When I went with Results UK and Leonard Cheshire Disability to see projects being run using UK aid for children with learning and physical disabilities in Kenya, I saw that the difference that education was making was on a completely different scale; children who had until recently no hope of even the most basic of schooling were able to enjoy so many of the benefits that we all take for granted. Without this schooling, too many children with learning disabilities, particularly girls with disabilities, were kept shut away at home, their opportunities in life unbelievably and heartbreakingly limited. But with school, funded through UK aid, they were growing and developing just like any other child of their age, with joy on their faces that could light up any room—this was genuinely changing lives.
It is more important than ever when budgets are tight that money is spent on the things that will make the most difference, and nothing could make more of a difference than investing in making sure that some of the most vulnerable children in the world can access quality education. I am proud that the UK set the example in replenishing funding for education which cannot wait, to make sure that children in emergency zones, whether places of conflict or areas where people have been displaced by famine, disease or climate change, have an education that can transform lives. I am pleased that other countries, such as the United States, the Netherlands and Germany, have stepped up to increase their own donations during the current crisis, when so many people around the world face even more barriers to accessing that education. I hope that the UK and our Government will use the opportunities as they host the G7 this year to make sure that not only our country, but our partners match our commitments with actions that meet the scale of the challenges we face to deliver on quality global education for all.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) [V]
I am very grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to slip under the wire for this very important debate. Like other hon. Members, I reflect on what education has meant for my family. I have two sisters, and the three of us are the first generation in our family to have gone through higher education. That is not an accident; it is not some freak of nature whereby this is suddenly a generation where the Carmichaels got smart. It is because my generation were given opportunities that were denied to my parents, grandparents and other generations before us. So it pains me to see that with 90% of our children out of school as a result of school closures arising from the pandemic, we risk losing and taking away these opportunities from our own coming generations. The pandemic has illustrated better than most things the full consequences of the digital divide, with which we have lived for too long; we see those areas of the country that have access to connectivity and those that do not, and the families who have broadband and sufficient devices for everybody to get home schooling opportunities, and those who do not. So when we come to the end of the restrictions and to rebuilding our economy, we must also look at rebuilding our own education system. Significant though these problems are, I suspect that most young people and teachers in most countries in the world today would love to have the problems that we will have when it comes to rebuilding after the pandemic. The progress that we made against the millennium development goals in terms of getting young people into primary education was significant, but let us not ignore the fact that we did not actually meet the millennium development goals, so it is now more important than ever that we try to meet the sustainable development goals.
The one point that we have to understand is that giving opportunities to young people in other countries—in the developing world, in particular—is not some act of altruism; it is actually good for our own children and communities. I look at the work that has been done by Anderson High School in Lerwick for decades now through its participation in the Global Classroom Partnership, and I see what that has added to the young people coming through that school in Shetland. The money—in hard cash terms—that we would be required to put in to meet the 0.7% GNI target would already be much reduced; not actually to meet that 0.7% target is criminal. The Government must think about this again, not just for the benefit of people in the developing world, but for the benefit of our own children and their educational opportunities.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
I thank the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) for bringing forward this important debate. On the UN International Day of Education, we must renew our commitment to UN sustainable development goal 4, pledging that by 2030 quality education will be accessible to all children and young people, regardless of nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation or class. This was always going to be a challenge. However, the pandemic has further highlighted unequal access to education. We must redouble our efforts to address long-standing educational obstacles and the new challenges that we face as a world in lockdown.
At the height of covid restrictions, schools were closed to more than 1.6 billion learners globally, and the impact has been felt most acutely by the most vulnerable. In the UK, as many as 1 million children and young people suffer from digital exclusion. I welcome measures from broadband providers to extend internet access to the most disadvantaged children. I also pay tribute to teachers in Glasgow, who, in some cases, have been going around houses to hand out dongles to those in need. However, more needs to be done at a UK Government level so that no young person is ever disadvantaged because of digital exclusion.
Internationally, remote learning remains out of reach for at least 500 million students. Many Members have pointed out that those most affected will be girls. Pre pandemic, 132 million girls worldwide did not attend school due to poverty or gender-based discrimination and violence. As a result of covid school closures, millions more are dropping out of school, with the Malala Fund estimating that an additional 20 million girls could be out of school by the time the pandemic ends. This is an entire generation of girls for whom life chances and choices are limited. We should also all take note of the comments from the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) regarding WASH.
Although I welcome the Government’s commitment to supporting 12 years of quality education for girls, and their support for the UN Refugee Agency for education of refugee children, these announcements are sullied by the decision to reduce the UK aid budget from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI. Even a short-term cut will impact children struggling to access an education, and it is notable that Members on both sides of the House have criticised this cut today.
One of the most challenging groups to support are learners in conflict zones. The Secretary of State has previously stated that he is proud of the UK’s aid generosity and that aid is a very positive vision for the UK as a “force for good” in the world, but if we are truly to emerge as a progressive global Britain, we must also acknowledge the impact on children and their access to education of UK foreign policy. Whether we are discussing generations of Palestinian children confined to refugee camps or the plight of children in Yemen after years of a war partially facilitated by the arms trade with Saudi Arabia, it is our duty to recognise the consequences of our actions and flawed foreign policy decisions. Only then can the UK sincerely call itself a resolute force for good in the world.
Finally, I echo the words of the UN Secretary-General:
“education is the foundation for expanding opportunities, transforming economies, fighting intolerance, protecting our planet and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.”
These are objectives that all Members share, so I call on all of us to continue working towards safe, accessible and quality education for all—especially girls—both at home and around the world.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) on securing this debate. I pay tribute to her excellent work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on global education.
Benjamin Franklin said:
“An investment in knowledge pays best interest.”
We know that, even before the pandemic, vast educational inequality existed. In the world’s poorest countries, nine out of 10 children were unable to read a basic book by the age of 10. The covid-19 pandemic and measures taken to contain it have highlighted and exacerbated that inequality around the world. Communities around the world are struggling, and this virus continues to destroy lives, livelihoods and opportunities.
Members rightly highlighted that the covid-19 pandemic has triggered a global educational crisis and raised that this educational deficit is not new. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) spoke about the equalities goal. I commend her work as Chair of the International Development Committee on overseas development assistance. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) talked about the importance of educating girls, because it lifts the whole country, which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) observed the importance of. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) talked about the importance of clean water. I know that she speaks with expertise, as somebody who worked in the aid sector before coming into the House. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) also argued for the importance of education.
During the first wave of the pandemic, 1.6 billion children in almost 200 countries suffered educational disruption. Save the Children reports that nearly 200 million children continue to be out of education. We know the importance of washing our hands to stop the spread of deadly viruses such as covid, yet globally, half of all schools do not have soap and water available to students. Will the Minister tell us what her Department is doing to rectify this situation?
Nationally, the Government’s record throughout the pandemic, I have to say, has been shambolic. We are still waiting for a clear path to schools opening safely. The UK has an important role to play in pushing global co-operation to ensure that students are able to return safely to school as quickly as possible. However, does the Minister find it difficult speaking with international counterparts, given the abject failure of the Secretary of State for Education, who has lurched from one failure to the next?
Many marginalised children rely on school meals, as well as health services and menstrual hygiene products. School closures have deprived 370 million of the most vulnerable children of their daily school meal. Does the Minister agree that these children deserve a nutritious diet? Almost half a billion children worldwide have not been able to access remote learning while schools have been closed. Where it is accessible, it is not given to girls. The Malala Fund estimates that 20 million secondary school-age girls in poorer communities could be out of school after the pandemic has ended.
We know that investment in girls’ education will suffer. However, proper investment in girls’ education can lead to global equality, which can then help nations to prepare for the effects of climate crisis as well.
This pandemic has threatened to turn the clock back on gender equality. We know that girls are far more likely to be kept out of school, take on burdens of care and forced into early marriages or domestic duties. Will the Minister make it clear that our Government will take action to tackle the structural causes of gender inequality, through the G7 later this year? What steps is she taking to overcome the causes, not just the symptoms? What contribution will her Government make to the replenishment of the Global Partnership for Education?
We are aware that the Minister and her Department are currently developing the girls education plan. What assessment has she made of the risk that the narrow targets for the girls education plan, announced in November last year, would lead to box-ticking programmes that do not genuinely tackle the multiple barriers that girls face in getting quality education? How will she ensure that the barriers for girls, teenagers and young women are all considered and that access is widened?
We have heard over and again that the Prime Minister is committed to advancing girls’ access to education, yet he has decided to signal the UK’s retreat from the world stage by scrapping a world-renowned Department in the middle of a pandemic, when that Department should have been rightly focusing on saving lives. He also refused to disclose the details of the cuts to lifesaving and lifechanging aid programmes. It appears that the slashing of the aid budget was purely politically motivated.
Unless swift action is taken, the current cut to the aid budget will put those commitments at risk at a time when poor countries that are already suffering are going to suffer even more. In fact, last year the Government cut a project that supports 200,000 young people in Rwanda and which had led to a reduction in teenage pregnancy and sexual violence. Does the Minister agree that cancelling a project that invests in the future of Rwandan girls is totally at odds with the Prime Minister’s stated commitment to girls’ education? Was that a mistake, or was it a lack of oversight and strategic vision within this newly created Department? Given the state of global education and the clear need for extra support, how much official development assistance will be spent on education in 2021, and how will it compare with 2019 and 2020?
Finally, what signal does the Minister think the Government’s bluff and bluster and cuts in aid, contradicted by sanctions, sends to our allies, such as President Biden?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Just before I call the Minister, I should explain, for those who can see, either in the Chamber or elsewhere, that the clock in front of us is wrong by about three minutes, so the official time up there for when this debate will finish is 5.3 pm. I do not want the hon. Ladies who are about to speak to think that they are being short-changed in any way whatsoever. They are not. It will, in fact, be 5 o’clock in the real world, but it will say 5.3 pm up there.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton)
I will endeavour to follow one or other of the clocks, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I hope I will get it right, safe in the knowledge that if I do not, you will gently nudge me in the right direction.
I would like to start by saying what an honour it has been to sit in this debate to mark the UN International Day of Education. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) for securing this debate, and I pay tribute to her for her exceptional work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on global education and in her previous role as a Minister. I also thank the many Members who have contributed to today’s debate. I am conscious that many more wanted to contribute but were unable to get in. I know from listening to the contributions that people spoke with a real passion for education and approached it from many different angles, both domestically and internationally.
In any year, the UN International Day of Education is an important moment to celebrate the hard work and dedication of teachers, lecturers and tutors all around the world. But this year, after 12 months when they have had to adapt like never before, it is particularly important that we pay tribute to the resilience, ingenuity and dedication that teachers have shown throughout the pandemic. I think of those around the world and those closer to home, and even those in my constituency of Aldridge-Brownhills, too.
Education is the centrepiece of our international development work, because it transforms lives and transforms societies. That is why we are committed to UN sustainable development goal 4 on quality education and to our manifesto pledge to stand up for the right of every girl to 12 years of quality education. Countries that provide their children with the springboard of education will be more prosperous and stable, which over time helps to maximise the opportunities for Britain abroad and minimises the number of threats that we face from abroad.
The challenge, however, is huge. Some have estimated that, even before the pandemic, only one in 10 children in low-income countries was able to read a simple story by the age of 10. For the sake of this generation and generations to come, the international community needs to redouble its efforts. As a demonstration of the political and strategic clout that we want to bring to our work, the Prime Minister recently appointed my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) as the UK’s special envoy on girls’ education. We heard her speaking in the Chamber earlier, and I know she will be a real advocate and a real champion for this. We are already working together to improve the lives of millions of girls, and benefiting from the breadth of her experience in championing gender equality and protecting women and children.
It is abundantly clear that the covid pandemic has set back educational progress around the world. At the height of the pandemic, more than 1.6 billion children were out of school. Today, children in more than 30 countries are navigating nationwide school closures. Across the globe, this is hitting the poorest and most marginal children the hardest. Millions of children in the most vulnerable places may never return to school, and this will inflict long-term harm that will also damage communities and national economies.
As if this were not enough, girls are also experiencing a shadow pandemic. As we have heard in some of the contributions this afternoon, when girls do not attend school, they are more vulnerable to violence and sexual abuse, as well as early child marriage and forced labour. So in response to covid-19, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has been supporting some of the most fragile education systems. In 20 countries with the greatest gender disparities, we are working to make sure that girls are not disproportionately impacted. For example, in Bangladesh, we have developed and delivered distance learning to almost 700,000 children through radio and mobile phones; in South Sudan, we are paying school and re-enrolment fees and helping schools to provide a covid-safe teaching environment; and in Sierra Leone, we are supporting young women to become qualified teachers and run distance learning study groups.
As hon. Members know, 2021 is a year of international leadership for the UK, and strengthening the delivery of quality education around the world is an important part of our agenda. We are putting girls’ education at the core of our G7 presidency. Alongside Kenya, we are co-hosting the Global Partnership for Education replenishment summit here in the UK this summer, and we will be hosting COP26 in Glasgow, which is a further opportunity to make a real difference for girls who are disproportionately impacted by the devastating effects of climate change, but whose leadership is vital in tackling the crisis. We will seek to mobilise investment and make sure that funding is spent most effectively. We will rally the international community around two global targets: first, to increase the number of girls around the world who go to primary or secondary school by 40 million; and, secondly, to increase the proportion of 10-year-old girls able to read by one third. These are ambitious targets, as is the sustainable development goal to ensure an inclusive and equitable quality education for all, but 2021 offers renewed hope: the chance to get children and teachers back to the classroom; the chance to reinvigorate the international community under our leadership; and the chance to get global education standards moving in the right direction. That is exactly what this Government are working for.
I would like to touch on as many of the specific questions that were raised by hon. Members in the debate as possible. There were several comments and questions around funding, which I will come on to, and around gender and violence against women and girls. Let me see how far I can get in the time that I have.
Many hon. Members asked about the impact of the 0.5%. As most Members are aware, due to the severe impact of the pandemic on our economy, we have had to take the very tough decision to spend 0.5% of our national income on official development assistance rather than the usual 0.7%. However, girls’ education will remain a priority for UK aid.
On the Global Partnership for Education replenishment, the UK, as co-hosts of the replenishment, will use all the levers at our disposal to secure a successful GPE replenishment. This includes our own pledge to the fund. Of course, I am unable to commit to what that will be, but the details will be decided by the Foreign Secretary and announced in due course.
Hon. Members also raised the issue of violence against women and girls, which I know we take very seriously in this place. The Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative is still a major priority for the Government, alongside girls’ education. It will play a part in our G7 presidency priorities as well as the work we do with the presidency of the UN Security Council.
Covid-19 has clearly created big challenges for girls out of education and for getting them back to school. As we have heard today, there are many challenges that link into that. We have heard about the importance of the WASH agenda. We have heard about the challenges that girls also face in not just accessing learning, but staying safe in schools.
Let me close by saying that we have set out very ambitious global goals to see that all girls access school and learn: 40 million more girls into school by 2025; and 20 million more girls reading by the age of 10 in developing countries. We are developing a girls’ education action plan to set out how we will be doing that. I hope the House can get behind us in supporting all the work we are doing in 2021 to support girls’ education.
Harriett Baldwin
It has been an excellent debate. I want to thank all 14 colleagues who were able to get in on the debate, but especially the eight colleagues who had wanted to speak from the Back Benches but were unable to do so on this occasion.
We travelled from the north of the UK in Orkney and Shetland, down to the south and Meon Valley, off to the west in Ceredigion and Maidstone in the east. We heard a consistent message about the importance of education, with some particular themes coming through: girls’ education, inclusive education, the importance of sanitation in schools and the importance of quality teaching.
From every speaker today, whether Opposition or Government Members, we heard about the importance of the UK’s leadership around the world in this issue. The UK Parliament has dedicated time to this subject today. Through the International Parliamentary Network for Education, which I co-founded with Kenya in the last year, we are arranging for many Parliaments around the world to speak this week about the UN International Day of Education and the importance of education.
We went all around the world in the speeches. We heard about Bangladesh. We heard about Syrian refugees in Lebanon. We heard about Mozambique. All Members who have spoken today agree on the importance of education. We want to see and follow the money in this Parliament, because we want to see the Government’s rhetoric matched by the appropriate level of funding for the various replenishments, so that we are not only encouraging others to contribute but making our own contributions. This has been a wonderful, female-dominated debate, for a change, and I thank everyone who took part.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered UN International Day of Education.
Business without Debate
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Covid-19: Extension of Driving Theory Test Certificates
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I want to start by thanking Mr Speaker for selecting this debate. This is an issue that adversely impacts tens of thousands of people right across the British Isles, and I know that the Minister will bear that in mind when she responds on behalf of the Government.
The covid-19 pandemic has had untold impacts on so many aspects of our lives, particularly as many of us have had to adapt to working from home. However, there are certain industries for which working from home is not possible. Throughout the pandemic, driving instructors have been restricted in their ability to work and teach. While lessons resumed for a short period during the summer last year, many driving instructors now find themselves in the same position they were in last March, when countries across these islands first went into lockdown.
Many people require a driving licence for employment and simply to get around. However, it is looking increasingly likely that they will have to pay additional fees to re-sit their theory tests and then wait months for an available space to sit the practical test, which will undoubtedly be overbooked. That will mean that when restrictions are eased, instead of getting straight to sitting their practical tests and hitting the roads, many people will be paying out of pocket and twiddling their thumbs, waiting for a test space to become free.
A quick fix exists for the UK Government, but they have declined to make it thus far. Just like they extended the MOT expiry dates at the outset of the pandemic, they are now being called upon to extend the theory test validity, which I would argue is actually less risky. Northern Ireland is a clear example of how extending the validity of a theory certificate can be done safely. Initially, the Northern Irish Executive extended the validity of theory certificates that expired between 1 March and 31 October by eight months, and then they went further and extended the validity of certificates by an additional four months. I am urging the UK Government to do the same and to extend the validity period of the driving theory certificate.
When organisations such as the National Associations Strategic Partnership have written to the UK Government, safety concerns are highlighted as one of the main reasons for not extending the driving theory certificate. The UK Government have said:
“Learner drivers were prohibited from practising during COVID-19. This lack of practice is likely to mean that their knowledge and skills base diminished, and research would suggest that this would be particularly detrimental to hazard perception skills.”
However, I spoke to the Driving Instructors Association, and it was made clear to me that much of the knowledge learned in the theory test is reviewed by driving instructors during the practical lessons and test. In fact, 97% of learner drivers take some training with a qualified driving instructor, thus learner drivers will continually be assessed and tested on their theoretical driving safety knowledge. While I understand the safety concerns, it seems to me that the practical driving test will ensure that all new drivers have retained their knowledge from the initial theory test.
MOT due dates for cars, motorcycles and light vans were automatically extended by six months from 30 March to help prevent the spread of covid-19. For many people, that action represented a greater threat to road safety than the need to retain the two-year validity of theory test certificates, and the theoretical knowledge of learner drivers. Most of us—probably including the Minister—would probably say that greater risk is associated with someone driving a car with worn brake pads, than with the prospect of their forgetting what to do if their brake light stays on. If the UK Government were willing to extend the MOT duty by six months during the pandemic, surely the same should be done for driving theory test certificates.
When considering this issue it is important to recognise who will be most impacted. Young adults will be the most affected. They have to pay £23 to apply to a company to resit a theory test that they have already passed, and throughout the pandemic young people have repeatedly faced the most consequences. As we heard in the previous debate, their education has been disrupted, they have faced huge redundancies, and we also face a mental health crisis among the younger generations.
For some young people, a driver’s licence is essential for obtaining future work, and without a licence, their opportunities are increasingly limited. If young people have to wait months to resit a theory test that they have already passed, while also paying £23 to do so, the wait for an available space to complete the practical test will only add to the time in which they are unable to secure work. That is bad news for getting the economy moving again, as we seek to build back better. Extending the validity of theory test certificates would provide a huge amount of relief for young people, who are already concerned about the additional costs of learning how to drive.
From a purely administrative point of view, once lockdown is lifted a flood of individuals will seek to resit their theory tests. On 8 January the number of expired theory test certificates due to lockdown stood just shy of 50,000, according to Marmalade insurance. At £23 per theory test, that is a loss of £1.1 million for UK learner drivers.
Let us be clear about exactly how bad the situation is. Last month, The Scotsman reported that Scottish learner drivers are facing a 100 mile trip and a four-month wait to resit theory tests, because of what the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency says is “unprecedented demand.” Will the Minister reflect on how ludicrous it is to ask someone from Fife to travel to England just to sit an exam that they have already passed?
Undoubtedly, many individuals will be looking to resit their theory tests once restrictions have been eased. The backlog in cases will be tough to process, potentially increasing the amount of people at test centres, and that will make an already awful situation much worse. It does not need to be like this. Just as happened in Northern Ireland, with the stroke of a pen Ministers in the Department for Transport can end this unnecessary chaos.
The UK Government should extend the validity of driving theory certificates, as that will relieve a lot of unnecessary stress for young people and driving instructors. I have a great amount of sympathy for Ministers who, at the beginning and throughout the pandemic, have been trying to spin numerous plates relating to every facet of their lives. The first time around, the Government said that they did not want to extend the validity of theory test certificates, but circumstances have changed. Lockdown has been prolonged. We are now approaching almost a year, and this issue needs revisiting. Given that circumstances have changed, it is time for Ministers to change their mind and exercise what I believe is common sense, which I am sure will be met with cross-party approval in the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for securing this important debate, which I am sure is being watched closely by many drivers up and down the country. The covid-19 pandemic has been an unprecedented challenge for us all, and following the announcement of national lockdown restrictions to help stop the spread of coronavirus, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency has once again had to suspend all routine theory tests and practical driving tests until restrictions are lifted. The hon. Gentleman fully outlined the resultant challenges for learners, and I assure him that I understand those challenges. He also recognised that Ministers have had to balance a number of conflicting issues when making decisions on these matters and many others. On the advice of scientific advisers, we need to take action to protect the NHS and save lives.
The requirement to undertake a driving theory test before a practical driving test is set out in the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999. The theory test is administered by the DVSA and has two elements: first, an assessment of the learner’s knowledge and understanding of the rules of the road and safe driving, comprising 50 multiple-choice questions, of which candidates must answer 43 correctly to pass; and secondly, the hazard perception test, to which the hon. Gentleman referred and which is an assessment of the learner’s ability to identify developing hazards, with 75 points available, of which candidates must score 44 to pass. Candidates must pass both elements during the same theory test.
Regulation 47(6) states that a theory test certificate has a validity period of two years. The maximum duration of two years between the passing of a theory test and the taking of a subsequent practical test is in place to ensure that a candidate’s road safety knowledge and ability to identify developing hazards is current. It is set in legislation and we currently have no plans to lay further legislation to extend it. I realise, of course, that that will affect and disappoint some learners—including the hon. Gentleman—and driving instructors, for understandable reasons, but it is nevertheless important that road safety knowledge and hazard perception skills are up to date at the critical point at which a candidate drives unsupervised for the first time.
Those with expiring theory test certificates will have taken the theory test in early 2019; since then, unfortunately, their lessons and practice sessions will have been significantly curtailed during recent lockdowns, and it is likely that their knowledge base will have diminished.
David Linden
I have a huge amount of respect for the Minister, but she will be aware that it is possible for someone in this country to have taken a driving test, say, 20 years ago and never to have driven in that 20-year period, but they will still have a valid licence and can get into a car and drive off. How does she reconcile that with the argument she is making?
Rachel Maclean
The hon. Gentleman temps me into a broad discussion that it would not be appropriate for me to undertake at this point, because we are discussing the particular issue of extending the theory test. I want to do full justice to this issue, and I will answer the questions that he has asked.
As I was saying, learner drivers will have had their practice sessions significantly curtailed. It is vital that we ensure that new drivers have current relevant knowledge and skills—that is a vital part of the preparation of new drivers, who are disproportionately represented in casualty statistics. That is an important point and one relevant to the point the hon. Gentleman just made. A 2008 study by the Transport Research Laboratory indicated that one in five new drivers had a collision within their first year of driving unsupervised. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that that is a high proportion. The Transport Research Laboratory also found that the hazard perception test is linked to a measurable reduction in some accidents. Those with higher scores on the test have safer records as new drivers.
The DVSA has not stood still on this issue: following a series of improvements to the learning and testing process, a 2017 revaluation found that only one in 11 new drivers had a collision within the first six months. Although that is a significant improvement, we cannot afford to be complacent about road safety and the risks to new drivers.
There will be those who ask—the hon. Gentleman made this argument powerfully—why the theory test expiry date cannot be extended in the same way as MOT certificates were extended during the first lockdown. The hon. Gentleman asked me to address this point, suggesting that it is a quick fix. Unfortunately, driver theory testing and MOT testing represent different issues in terms of the underlying legislation, road safety risk and potential risk of covid-19 transmission. For that reason, they cannot be directly compared.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me specifically why, if the Government of Northern Ireland have made the decision, we cannot do the same thing. We have, of course, looked at the matter and considered it as part of our deliberations, but ultimately such matters are devolved to the Government of Northern Ireland and it is rightly a decision for them.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the MOT due dates for cars, motorcycles and light vans were automatically extended by six months from 30 March 2020 to help prevent the spread of covid-19. Drivers at that time, however, were advised that all vehicles must continue to be properly maintained and kept in a roadworthy condition.
The DVSA’s focus should rightly be on developing solutions to address the availability of theory tests and the backlog of practical driving tests that has arisen as a result of the pandemic. I am aware of proposals to allow approved driving instructors to sign off their learner and issue driving test pass certificates. Unfortunately, that is not possible. The Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999 require driving test examiners to pass an examination before being authorised by the Secretary of State to conduct practical driving tests. The Road Traffic Act 1988 allows a full driving licence to be issued only if the person has passed the test of competence to drive.
To increase the availability of theory tests, which I know the hon. Gentleman is concerned about, the DVSA has extended theory test centre opening times where possible and extended the booking window from three months to four months to give candidates more choice of available dates.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
On the point about increasing the availability of theory tests in future to deal with the anticipated backlog, will the Minister consider, certainly in some rural areas such as Ceredigion, looking at introducing perhaps even temporary theory centres? At the moment, if somebody lives in Lampeter, not only did they lose the practical test centre two years ago, but they face a 50-mile round trip to attend the theory test centre. Will she consider that?
Rachel Maclean
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we want to ensure that theory tests are available to all candidates. I will certainly consider the matter that he raised and discuss it with my honourable colleague in the other place.
I assure hon. Members that once testing can resume safely, the DVSA will continue to work closely with Pearson, the provider, to monitor demand and explore ways in which it can further expand testing capacity and reduce waiting times. We are very focused on social distancing at those test centre sites, the wearing of face coverings and using physical screens between test booths.
David Linden
The Minister is being very kind in giving way once more. There is also this issue: if the Government are so insistent—as it sounds like they are today—on ensuring that people have to go back and resit an exam that they have already passed, will they at least waive the £23 fee? That strikes me as being a reasonable compromise at this stage. Are they willing to consider that?
Rachel Maclean
Of course, we have considered this issue. The current view is that, actually, the candidate whose theory test certificate has expired will have received the service for which they paid the fee. If we are to waive that fee for subsequent tests, someone has to pay, and ultimately, that has to be paid for by the taxpayer, so that is not a decision that we are taking at this time.
So what are we doing to increase the number of driving tests available to tackle the backlog once it is safe for tests to resume? Some of the measures include offering overtime and annual leave buy-back to examiners, asking warrant card holders who are qualified to carry out tests to do so and conducting out-of-hours testing. A recruitment campaign is also under way to increase the overall number of driving examiners available for testing. The DVSA will continue to assess further options for increasing testing capacity and is committed to reducing the backlog as quickly as possible.
David Linden
If I understand things correctly, the Government are going to try to bring in other examiners. Given that this whole debate is about current knowledge, will the Minister clarify that the examiners who will be brought in will have their knowledge refreshed before they pass judgment on people?
Rachel Maclean
Yes, of course. All these measures will be taken according to road safety and the regulations and standards that we rightly expect the DVSA to abide by.
I would like to address again the points that the hon. Gentleman made on the refund of fees. While I have said that the candidate whose theory test certificate expires will have received the service for which they pay the fee, if a practical test is already booked at the time when the theory test expires, the DVSA will refund the fee for the practical driving test. I hope that he would welcome that approach.
It is also important to put on record that during the current lockdown, the DVSA is offering a mobile emergency worker testing service in England and Wales. This is a limited service, and it is restricted to candidates working in the NHS, health and social care and public bodies involved in work responding to threats to life.
To conclude, I understand very well the impact the pandemic is having on individuals and businesses, and I am grateful to all learners and training providers for their continued patience during this challenging time. Keeping Britain’s roads safe must remain our priority. The decision has been made not to extend theory test certificates, and learners will need to pass another theory test if their certificate expires. In closing, I hope that with the engagement I have mentioned, I have been able to offer some reassurance to address the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Contingencies Fund Advance
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
The Cabinet Office has sought a repayable cash advance from the Contingencies Fund of £429,000,000.
The requirement has arisen due to increased costs relating to urgent expenditure, including that relating to the covid-19 response.
Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £429,000,000 will be sought in the supplementary estimate for the Cabinet Office. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £429,000,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
[HCWS744]
Conflict, Stability and Security Fund Allocations 2020-21
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
I wish to update the House on the progress of the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund (CSSF) for the Financial Year 2019/20, as well as to announce the initial regional and thematic allocations for this Financial Year, 2020/21. Allocation Non-ODA ODA Total Middle East North Africa £20.00 £163.13 £183.13 South Asia £9.43 £93.64 £103.07 Africa (sub-Saharan) £33.60 £65.17 £98.77 Overseas Territories £54.35 £4.65 £59.00 Eastern Europe, Central Asia £25.69 £55.59 £81.28 Western Balkans £7.50 £72.50 £80.00 Americas £0.38 £18.25 £18.63 Asia Pacific £0.75 £15.00 £15.75 Turkey - £2.00 £2.00 REGIONAL TOTAL £151.70 £489.93 £641.63 Migration - £7.50 £7.50 Counter Extremism £14.93 £26.08 £41.00 Multilateral Strategy £4.50 £28.50 £33.00 National Security Communications Team £2.50 - £2.50 Serious and Organised Crime £10.50 £11.70 £22.20 Cyber £0.50 £12.00 £12.50 Gender and Human Rights - £4.90 £4.90 THEMATIC TOTAL £32.93 £90.68 £123.60 Peacekeeping £306.10 £81.99 £388.09 MOD DMAP £50.00 - £50.00 MOD Afghan Security £100.00 - £100.00 MOD UNFICYP £18.10 - £18.10 MOD UN Ops Africa £21.40 - £21.40 Non-Discretionary TOTAL £495.60 £81.99 £577.59 Corporate Delivery Support & Other (this includes Stabilisation Unit, Joint Funds Unit and pilot activities) - £23.23 £23.23 TOTAL CSSF £680.22 £685.83 £1,366
The CSSF is a cross-Government fund which uses both official development assistance (ODA) and non-ODA resources to deliver against both national security and UK Aid objectives, through security, defence, peacekeeping, peace-building and stability activity. In 2019-20, the CSSF spent £1,234.3 million against a cross-Government allocation of £1,266.2 million (97.5%). A further breakdown of spend against regional and thematic allocation, by department and by discretionary and non-discretionary spend is included in the CSSF’s Annual Report for 2019-20, published today.
The report outlines the impact that the Fund has had, and demonstrates how the Fund is contributing to the delivery of national security and UK Aid objectives. The report also highlights ways in which the Fund has made further improvements to programme management processes including how it monitors and measures results. A copy of this document will be placed in the libraries of both Houses and has been published on gov.uk.
The annual report can be found at:
CSSF: Annual Report 2019/20 (FCDO0044 CSSF Report 2019-20 v4.pdf)
[HCWS740]
Double Taxation Convention: United Kingdom and Germany
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
A protocol to the Double Taxation Convention with Germany and a joint declaration were signed on 12 January. The protocol will give effect to certain OECD/G20 base erosion and profit shifting recommendations that protect tax treaties against avoidance activities, ensuring that the UK’s double taxation agreement with Germany meets the minimum OECD/G20 recommended standards. The text of the protocol and joint declaration are available on HM Revenue and Customs’ pages of the gov.uk website and will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. The text of the protocol will be scheduled to a draft Order in Council and laid before the House of Commons in due course.
[HCWS743]
Contingencies Fund Advance
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Oliver Dowden)
The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has sought in its supplementary supply estimate 2020-21 the resources, capital and cash it requires to operate for this financial year.
The funds associated with this estimate will not be released until the Supply and Appropriation Bill achieves Royal Assent in early March. The Department has therefore sought a Contingencies Fund advance which will be repaid once Royal Assent has been obtained.
Parliamentary approval for resources of £1,668,432,000, capital of £520,836,000 and cash of £57,000,000 has been sought in a supplementary estimate for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £2,246,268,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
[HCWS742]
Covid-19: House Party Fines and Domestic Enforcement Measures
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
On 28 September, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) Regulations 2020 came into force. These regulations mean that self-isolation is a legal requirement for individuals who have been notified by one of the bodies specified in the regulations (in practice, mainly NHS Test and Trace) that they have tested positive for covid-19 or are a close contact of someone who has tested positive. Non-adherence to these regulations can result in a fixed penalty notice (FPN) ranging from £1,000 to £10,000. Failure to pay the FPN can result in criminal proceedings and conviction.
Ensuring that infected individuals and their close contacts self-isolate is one of the most powerful tools for controlling transmission of covid-19. Increased compliance with self-isolation will reduce transmission of the virus, preventing family and friends from contracting coronavirus, and protecting the NHS.
The Government expect individuals to comply when they are required to self-isolate. Where there are reports of suspected breaches, the police approach to engage, explain and encourage compliance is the right one. But, on occasion, this approach needs to be backed-up with enforcement against those who flout the rules and put others at risk.
We have been working closely with colleagues on the National Police Chiefs’ Council to ensure that the information we share with them supports effective enforcement where that is necessary.
In order to issue a fixed-penalty notice, the police need to be satisfied that they are engaging with the right person, that the person is aware of their duty to self-isolate and that the person has indeed breached that legal requirement.
NHS Test and Trace currently shares the following information with the police:
First and last name of individual
Home address and telephone number
Period of self-isolation
Date notification to self-isolate was received
Following consultation with the police it has become clear that further information is necessary to strengthen the effectiveness of the enforcement regime around self-isolation.
Following a report of suspected non-compliance, and following checks by NHS Test and Trace to confirm the individual is under the legal duty to self-isolate, NHS Test and Trace will henceforth share the following additional information with police on a case by case basis, as necessary:
Details of how the individual was notified by Test and Trace, including address, telephone number and email address where relevant
Date of birth
Whether the individual is a positive case or a close contact
A copy of the notification issued by Test and Trace, where possible
Whether the individual is taking part in coronavirus related research (and is therefore exempt from the legal duty to self-isolate)
These changes will support the police in taking enforcement action when that is appropriate. In particular, it will enable them to share a copy of the notification to self-isolate if an individual says they did not receive it.
It will also enable the police to gather relevant evidence should criminal proceedings ensue in the event that an FPN is issued and not paid. In such cases, it is important for the police to know, and where appropriate evidence, the precise circumstances around each individual breach and how the duty to self-isolate arose. Information on whether individuals are under a duty to self-isolate due to having tested positive or as a result of being a close contact of someone who has tested positive (including in the copy of the notification) will only be shared and will only be used where necessary for “the purpose of carrying out a function under regulation 10, 12 or 13 [functions regarding enforcement, issuing FPNs and bringing proceedings] or otherwise or the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of offences under these regulations”. These changes will help improve the effectiveness of police action against reported breaches of self-isolation.
As announced last week by the Home Secretary, regulations will also increase fixed penalty notices for those caught attending illegal gatherings in private dwellings and student accommodation (such as house parties)—of more than 15 people from £200 to £800 in England. Fixed penalty notices for such offences will double for each successive offence up to a maximum of £6,400. This will provide the police with the enhanced powers they need to tackle egregious breaches of the law. We have been committed from the beginning of this pandemic to following the science, and the science is clear that larger gatherings of people in indoor spaces present a significant risk of transmission and spread of the virus.
The necessary amendments to the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) Regulations 2020 and the introduction of an enhanced FPN for indoor gatherings over 15 people will be laid before parliament, and will come into force, on 29 January 2021.
[HCWS746]
NHS England and NHS Improvement: Annual Assessment 2019-20
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
Today, I am laying before Parliament my annual assessment of the NHS commissioning board (known as NHS England) for 2019-20.
Covid-19 has presented an unprecedented challenge, the scale of which the NHS has not seen in its 72-year history. I would like to begin by giving my utmost thanks and appreciation to all colleagues throughout the NHS for their dedication and hard work responding to the virus.
My assessment of NHS England and NHS Improvement’s (NHSE/I) performance for 2019-20 reflects the impact these challenges have had on the health service and differentiates between performance before the pandemic took hold and the subsequent impact managing the virus has had on delivery. To this end, I have defined performance pre-covid-19 as the period April 2019 to end January 2020. Evidence from this period has been used to make a reasonable assessment of where performance would have been had covid-19 not happened.
2019-20 was a transitional year for the NHS, that saw NHSE/I embed the first phase of delivery against the NHS long term plan. NHSE/I has worked closely with local health systems to develop robust, system and local-level implementation plans. In 2020-21 these plans will need to be revised to reflect possible new and longer-term demands caused by covid-19 and to account for the Government’s 2019 manifesto commitments. To ensure these plans are workable NHSE/I must ensure disciplined financial management across all organisations. I am therefore pleased to see most NHS providers reporting a year-end position that is equal to or better than their agreed control totals.
To ensure performance targets are appropriate and help improve clinical quality and outcomes, NHSE/I has field tested proposals in urgent and emergency care, routine elective care, cancer and adult and children’s mental health as part of the clinically led review of NHS access standards. The impact of covid-19 has delayed the final evaluation report and I expect NHSE/I to continue to work with wider Government and local NHS organisations to produce evidence-based approaches. An increase in demand for services in 2019-20 pre-pandemic has meant that performance targets on NHS constitutional standards were not on track to be met by the end of the year. Between April 2019 and January 2020, demand for urgent investigation of possible cancer and emergency admissions via A&E increased by 8% and 3.5% respectively, compared to the same period last year, making it harder for the NHS to treat patients within the agreed targets. Key to managing demand in the system is ensuring a steady flow of patients through to the point at which they can be safely discharged. Despite great efforts in both health and social care, the average delayed transfer of care (DTOC) figure of 4,000 or fewer delays remains challenging and the trajectory up until January 2020 was 5128 leaving a cumulative target of 1,182 beds to be delivered.
Another key element of the NHS long term plan was publication in June 2019 of NHSE/I’s interim people plan that was reinforced in August 2020 with the “We are the NHS: People Plan for 2020-21—action for us all”. The publication of the overarching NHS people plan will need to account for new workforce demands and costs due to the pandemic as shortages remain a critical risk to service recovery. It is also critically important that we have rigorous plans in place to deliver the additional 50,000 nurse places that the Government promised to deliver in this Parliament. I am also grateful that NHSE/I has taken the lead in supporting members of our workforce who are most vulnerable and provided an enhanced staff health and wellbeing offer, including targeted support for our BAME colleagues and, where possible, offering opportunities for flexible and remote working.
I am pleased to see NHSE/I support the Government’s health and social care pledges set out in the 2019 manifesto. Great progress has been made on capital in 2019-20, which was underpinned by the health infrastructure plan (HIP), published in September 2019. The Government are committed to building 40 new hospitals, and the NHS has already made significant progress in developing these plans to deliver world-class care in world-class facilities. Similarly, the NHS has pressed ahead with delivering the 20 hospital upgrades announced by the Prime Minister in August 2019. I am assured NHSE/I has committed to work with the Government to improve public confidence in hospital food and commend them for supporting the commitment to abolish hospital parking fees for those patients and families in greatest need.
Looking forward, I am pleased to see NHSE/I use evidence from responding to covid-19 to reduce barriers and improve the way services are delivered. The pandemic has also brought to light the burden placed on the NHS by the interoperability of systems and the need for more effective information sharing between care settings and organisations, as well as between professionals and the public, to enhance health outcomes and quality of care. I am therefore eager to see the implementation of the technology standards set out in the “Future of Healthcare” to better integrate information flows.
The NHS remains this country’s most valued public service, an institution that is there for every family, everywhere, at the best of times and at the worst. In light of covid-19, the Government want to continue to ensure that the NHS has the space, certainty and funds to deliver a transformative plan that will ensure patients benefit from a ground-breaking health service into the next decade.
We will continue to work closely with NHSE/I to help them deliver this ambition, address the challenges that lie ahead and provide a sustainable and efficient health service with quality, transparency and safety at its heart.
Copies of my annual assessment and NHSE/I’s annual report will be available from the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office.
[HCWS741]
Accredited Financial Investigation Powers: Consultation
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
I intend to lay a statutory instrument this year which will grant accredited financial investigator powers to an additional five agencies. This will bring the total number of agencies with access to these powers to 36 in addition to all police forces and local authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Accredited financial investigator powers grant civilians working for that agency access to certain Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 powers, which assist in the effective recovery of proceeds of a crime that falls under that agency’s jurisdiction. Accredited financial investigators have the ability to use financial intelligence for more complex financial investigations and are able to contribute to the recovery of the proceeds of crime.
The following organisations have sought access to accredited financial investigator powers: the Service Police, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the Information Commissioner’s Office, the Department for the Economy Northern Ireland and the London Fire Brigade. I have assessed the value of extending the powers to each of these agencies—in particular whether effective criminal justice outcomes could be reached in their jurisdictions without access to these powers—and I have concluded that we should seek to grant the powers to all five. However, I intend to seek the views of the wider public as to whether these organisations should be granted these powers.
Currently, the previously mentioned agencies either rely on other agencies designated with financial investigation powers—such as the National Crime Agency or police forces—or have no access to recover proceeds of crime within their jurisdiction. Granting these organisations access to the powers will improve the law enforcement outcomes that they can deliver. The Home Office committed to grant these powers to additional organisations in the asset recovery action plan, published in 2019.
As such, I intend to publish a consultation for seven weeks from 28 January. This consultation will seek to establish the views from the public on whether or not these organisations should be granted the financial investigator powers.
I will arrange for a copy of the consultation document to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS745]
Grand Committee
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
The time limit for the following debate is three hours. Lord Forsyth of Drumlean? Can we try again for the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean? All other speakers, please be on mute. We are still experiencing some technical problems, so we will adjourn for five minutes.
Social Care Funding (EAC Report)
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Economic Affairs Committee Social care funding: time to end a national scandal (7th Report, Session 2017-19, HL Paper 392).
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to introduce the Economic Affairs Committee’s report, Social Care Funding: Time to End a National Scandal.
We published our report in July 2019, and yet, 18 months later, we still await the Government’s response. The Government are accountable directly to Parliament. They have a duty and a responsibility to reply to committee reports in a timely way, usually within two months. Some 18 months ago, we said:
“With each delay the level of unmet need in the system increases, the pressure on unpaid carers grows stronger, the supply of care providers diminishes and the strain on the care workforce continues.”
Just 20 days after our report was published, the Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street and said
“we will fix the crisis in social care once and for all with a clear plan we have prepared to give every older person the dignity and security they deserve.”
Now, more than ever, urgent government action is required.
Before I explain our conclusions, I would like to thank the committee staff who produced the report: Sam Newhouse, Luke Hussey, Michael Berry, Ben McNamee and Lucy Molloy. Especial thanks go to our special adviser Professor Richard Humphries, whose support was invaluable. I also thank my noble friend Lord Tugendhat, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and the noble Lord, Lord Burns, who leave the committee today under our rotation rules. All of them have made a huge contribution to our deliberations and participated in no fewer than nine inquiries.
I must begin by praising our care workers. They have been on the front line of the pandemic. They have put their own health and safety to one side to care for and protect the most vulnerable among us. Care workers have performed an immeasurable service for our country but clapping alone will not help put in place the major reform that the sector so desperately needs.
In May 2020, I wrote to the Chancellor to press the case that this report deserves renewed attention now that the needs of the sector, and the heroic service and sacrifice of its workforce, have come to the fore of the nation’s priorities. In response, the Chancellor said:
“The Government’s number one priority for adult social care is for everyone who relies on care to get the care they need throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.”
In July 2020, I exchanged letters with the Minister of State for Care in which she assured me that the Government were due to meet shortly to discuss our report and any further reflections on reform. Finally, in October 2020, the Minister, my noble friend Lord Bethell, said that the pandemic had delayed the Government’s work on designing a sustainable social care funding model—words, words, words and broken promises.
Let me be clear. It is quite wrong to suggest that the Government could not have, and cannot, bring forward a plan for social care reform because of the pandemic. The opposite is the case, and I hope my noble friend will not repeat this calumny when he reads out his departmental speech this afternoon. The pandemic has revealed the centrality of social care and the need for no more dithering, no more Green Papers, no more delays; major reform must take place now.
We held a private meeting with care workers, and the stories we heard were truly humbling. We heard of frustration at being described as “just a carer” and that the sector is no longer seen as attractive. We heard from burnt-out workers, who cannot afford to run a car, forced to take multiple train journeys to get to work, working 14- to 15-hour days with take-home pay less than can be obtained for stacking shelves in a supermarket. Social care workers deserve better than this. They should be rewarded and treated as a highly skilled and caring profession. We concluded that career structures, training and the establishment of a professional structure were urgently needed.
Social care is a job-rich sector at a time when, sadly, unemployment is soaring as a consequence of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Resolution Foundation said that it would take an extra 180,000 care workers just to bring the ratio of carers to the over-70s population back to its 2014 peak. That is 180,000 just to get back to where we were in 2014. In our most recent report, on employment and Covid-19, we repeated that the Government should expand the number of care workers by increasing funding to the sector, with stipulations that it should be used to raise wages and improve training and conditions. It is time to turn our hands from applause to actions which give our social care workers the deal they deserve.
We have had enough of excuses for procrastination such as “The Government cannot bring forward plans for reform without cross-party consensus.” Everyone knows there is a consensus in Parliament and the country that we need to commit the resources that are desperately needed to support our most vulnerable citizens, young and old.
In May 2020, when our committee held its annual session with the Chancellor, we pressed him on the problems faced by the care sector. He said that the absence of a consensus over funding is a significant barrier to reform, along with its expense. That translates from Treasury speak to “I don’t want to spend the money.”
Since then, the Government have continued to kick the can down the road. More speeches have been given accepting the need for reform, yet cross-party talks have been delayed, and the proposals the Government have promised have been pushed back again. There was consensus in our cross-party report on a fully costed, long-term solution. The duty now falls upon the Government to bring forward a plan that reflects the cross-party consensus that does exist.
We drew attention to dwindling access to local authority funding, and the increasing pressures that result in the rationing of care to people who are in desperate need. Recent figures from the IFS show that between 2009-10 and 2017-18, per-person spending on social care for the over-65s fell by 31%. Significant investment is needed to buck that trend. We examined various options for how funding social care can be made sustainable. Having done so, we recommended that social care be funded largely from general taxation.
A central theme of our inquiry was the question of fairness. Our report identified three ways in which the present system is unfair: disparities between adult social care and the NHS, between those who fund their own care and those who receive local authority funding, and between different local authorities.
On the first of these, the UK has an ageing population, and many people have complex and difficult social care needs which they must fund themselves. The disparity with the NHS, which is free at the point of use, is striking. Why should support be free for cancer patients but not those suffering from motor neurone disease, for example?
Dementia was cited by several witnesses as an example of this disparity. The costs of caring for dementia can be long-lasting and, in some cases, catastrophic. The Alzheimer’s Society told us that the typical dementia care costs are £100,000, rising to £500,000 in some cases.
Secondly, care homes charge self-funders more in order to make up the inadequate amounts paid by local authorities. The Competition and Markets Authority estimated that self-funders paid 41% higher fees than the local authority rate. Witnesses said this amounted to a cross-subsidy that is unsustainable. We concluded that there is a real danger of a two-tier market emerging, in which care homes are driven to market to self-funders, reducing the availability of places for individuals sponsored by local authorities.
Thirdly, local authorities differ in respect of the cost pressures they face and their ability to raise funds. The result is that a postcode lottery has emerged. These disparities are growing with every day of government inaction. Reports suggest that the Government have been looking at private insurance as a way forward. I am grateful to the Association of British Insurers for the briefing that it sent to colleagues for this debate and which reflects the committee’s conclusions. No country relies primarily on private insurance to fund adult social care costs. It cannot provide the amount of funding required by the social care system, not least because roughly half of public social care funding is spent on people who are of working age; it is not just about the elderly.
Instead, we concluded that social care must be brought closer to the NHS by introducing free personal care. Personal care is about funding the basic activities of daily living: help with washing, bathing, dressing, mobility, eating and drinking. It does not include other, more expansive, activities, such as assistance with housework or shopping. Those in care homes would still pay for their accommodation and assistance with less critical needs. Those receiving care in their own homes would not have to pay accommodation costs, which may encourage care users to seek essential help with personal care early.
As the ABI says in its brief, a universal offer from the state would provide a clearer foundation on which people can plan and make their own provision where they need to top up. If personal care was free, individuals would likely be expected to top up their hotel costs with private funding. An insurance or asset-based top-up market could grow to support this. We concluded that the costs of care should be shared between individuals and the taxpayer. We were told that basic entitlement to publicly funded personal care would cost around £7 billion, if introduced in 2020-21.
We concluded that the Government should adopt a staged approach to providing the additional funding. We said that they should immediately invest in adult social care to restore quality and access to 2009-10 levels, estimated now to cost £10 billion. They should then introduce free personal care over the next five years.
In July 2018, the then Prime Minister announced that NHS funding would be increased by £34 billion over the next five years. This amounted to a spending increase in real terms of £20.5 billion. That increase alone is almost as much as the total spending on social care. It is time Cinderella was taken to the ball.
I have been a Conservative for nearly 50 years. I served in local government for five years, in both Houses of Parliament for 36 years and as a Minister for more than a decade. Of course, during that time, I have supported policies that I was uncomfortable with and promoted others that I regret, but I have never felt the sense of shame that I feel today at our failure to act on the funding of social care and to tackle, in the words of the title of our report, “a national scandal”. I beg to move.
Baroness Kingsmill (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted that we have at last got this debate, and I share the frustration of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, at the time it has taken. He has been an indefatigable leader and chairman of the Economic Affairs Committee in the time that I have served on it, and I am most grateful to him and my colleagues on it for all the work and energy that have gone into not only this report but others, where we have tried to be practical and helpful and to make achievable suggestions for policy change.
I am also grateful for the passion with which the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has dealt with this and spoken about it today. My passion is somewhat dimmed by defeat, in a way, because it feels as if this is something that I have been banging on about for ages and we are still not really getting anywhere—but I am sure that everyone in the sector feels the same.
I will focus particularly on the plight of the care workers because that is my background and area of interest. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has mentioned them, but it is worth going into some of the privations that they suffer in a little more depth. They are under- valued, underpaid and definitely undertrained; they do not have the status of nurses or even of childminders. The sector is subject to very weak regulation: we just do not know who they are or what qualifications they hold, and they are not registered with any professional body. The workforce of 1.8 million people in England is almost invisible—that is, until you need them, when they become very important.
The low status and poor treatment of care workers have led to a really vicious downward spiral in one of the most difficult sectors for workers, with a huge amount of exploitation. It is not just that they are badly paid; most of them earn less than the minimum wage, if you take into account the fact that many of them do not get paid for working in between clients. They are not paid for the journeys that they make and are often subject to very exploitative zero-hours contracts, which destabilise their lives and make it extremely difficult for them to do their work properly.
The workforce tends to be older women or migrant workers, which may very well account for the fact that they are not given much priority within the health and care service generally. They are overlooked and, as I say, we do not really know who they are. Turnover among care workers is enormous—between 30% and 40%—because they are badly paid; sometimes the supermarket down the road is offering a pound an hour more, and they have to go. They are often the main wage earner in their family, and they have to go where they can earn the most money, so there is a terrible, very rapid, turnover.
In the context of the Covid crisis that we are suffering, care workers are seven times more likely than the rest of the population to become infected with it. There is a huge amount of absenteeism at the moment because of illness or isolation, and there is a vast unmet need for care workers at the moment.
The other issue that is important when we talk about care workers is the fact that they have no career opportunities. Attracting people into the profession is very difficult: there is no progression and it is seen as unskilled work, which it most certainly is not because, so often, they need to have the skills to deal with complex feeding methods, using hoists for moving patients, dressing wounds and administering medication, as well as providing vital domestic and emotional support for the care recipients. They have to do all of this in 15-minute slots, if they are a domiciliary worker—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I remind the noble Baroness of the four-minute time limit.
Baroness Kingsmill (Lab) [V]
On that point, I will sum up simply by saying that I commend this report and hope that action comes as a result of it.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, social care funding for older people or those with a disability has been put in the “too difficult” or “too expensive” box for as long as I have been involved in health and care policy—about 20 years. At every general election since 2010, there has been a promise to fix it, and, sure enough, after the 2019 general election, as we have heard, Prime Minister Johnson joined his predecessors and promised to address the issue “once and for all”.
State provision of social care is not easy, it can be expensive and there is no right way to do it. The German and Japanese models are often quoted; they involve members of the public contributing to an insurance system that will pay for their care once they need it.
England has no state provision of social care. We have a system whereby the person’s needs are addressed and, after a means test, they will find if they are eligible for financial support from their local authority. This will go some way towards the provision of their social care, either in their own home or in a residential setting, but not accommodation costs.
Local authorities pay out at different rates. I sat on the joint scrutiny committee for the Care Bill 2014. We heard of families moving to a neighbouring county to ensure that they were eligible for a more generous provision. Sometimes there is a need to top up from savings or by selling or remortgaging the family home. Some with long-term care needs might, for many years, face care costs that seem reasonable at the outset but will quickly erode savings. So the proposed cap is welcome.
The proposal to introduce free personal care over the next five years should be adopted. This would require an immediate investment of £8 billion—the estimate from the King’s Fund and the Health Foundation.
The other part of the care system is for those adults with disabilities; the majority—1.5 million—have a learning disability. Until last year I was chair of a charity which cared for over 2,000 adults with a learning disability. With help, such people can lead a fulfilling life. Many are in residential care or supported living. The funding from this comes from local authorities, which hold the responsibility for their care. Each year the conversations with commissioners become more difficult, as local authorities’ budgets are stretched and the costs of caring rise.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Kingsmill, said, care workers are paid poorly, and should be receiving the real living wage of £9.50 per hour but many do not. Those who work in the care of either older people or those with a learning or physical disability are not unionised, as nurses are. They are not regulated; nor are they required to have formal qualifications, but many would take the care certificate. Someone who has been fired for negligence or worse can walk out and get a job straightaway. This should change.
Whichever way you look at it, the current system is no longer fit for purpose. There is a sustainable solution. The report of the Select Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, offers a route map for the department. Mencap estimates that £3.2 billion would stabilise the system. So, when they have a moment, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care should read this report, and do what successive Governments have promised to do: fix the funding of the care system. This would be welcomed by so many older people and their children.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare that I chair the National Mental Capacity Forum and am a Bevan Commissioner. This commendable report provides a way forward, recommending that there must be an appropriate national funding formula. That formula must be fair, recognising that areas of high costs are often in areas of less business buoyancy, meaning that the desire to make local authorities more fiscally self-reliant risks widening gaps in provision and worsening the postcode lottery.
The report was prophetic. The pandemic has shown that social care cannot be used as a pressure valve for the NHS. It has also revealed to the nation, as the report points out, that social care sector staff providing direct care are underpaid and undervalued and that their personal well-being has often been overlooked.
Personalised care has two distinct roles. One is providing all the personalised care underpinning and integrated with healthcare interventions, often delivered by health and social care staff working together. Any division based on budgets creates an artificial split, with expensive bureaucratic processes if a person’s care moves from one sector to another, either geographically or by diagnostic category.
The other role of personal social care is to support people—often working-age adults—in their own homes, to allow them to live well and contribute in our society. A key part of this role is in the prevention of healthcare problems arising. Yet this prevention role has been chronically undervalued, even though it saves avoidable expenditure from the health budget. The future of public health in social care needs much greater emphasis.
During the pandemic, some charities have instigated innovative programmes to deliver social care and support, several seeing great results in improving mobility and independence. But current funding difficulties for charities have revealed our overreliance on this sector over years.
The report highlights the workforce—without a workforce any structure will fail and there will certainly be no resilience. Will the Government urgently look again at a proper career structure with parity of esteem and of pay for those in social care? Percentage pay increases simply widen the gap between the lowest paid, who do the work with the most vulnerable, and others. Staff need their travel time between homes recognised and to be able to park on arrival. They need ongoing training and supervision, with support for their own well-being—if they feel cared for, they are better able to care for others. Those receiving social care are potentially very vulnerable, which is why a proper registration and revalidation process of social care staff would set a national standard and could provide a focus—to nurture staff, helping them feel pride in their work and more respected. Their work is highly skilled and low paid, and their indemnity needs sorting out across the sector in the long term as part of an integrated system.
Form must follow function in a fair national funding formula that recognises our duty to each other in society. In this way, we might be able to move forward. To not heed this report will worsen our problems.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle [V]
My Lords, I add my own expression of gratitude to the Economic Affairs Committee for such a clear and coherent report, based as it is on such careful research and presenting us with such direct and forthright conclusions. Its basic principles for reform are eminently sensible. Like others, I applaud the emphasis, pace Dilnot, on a partnership approach to the funding of social care, and the principles of free personal care, with a cap on accommodation costs, and increased funding enabled by general taxation. I will focus my brief contribution on principle (j), which reads:
“Invest in the social care workforce and ensure a more joined up approach to workforce planning with the National Health Service.”
If that is ignored, any increase in funding will run the risk of being wasted.
We are all well aware of the current situation in this country. The number of older people and working-age adults requiring care is increasing rapidly. Some 1.4 million people over 65 have unmet care needs. Covid has reminded us of just how crucial care homes and carers are in our society, alongside NHS workers and social services. Yet, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Kingsmill and Lady Finlay, have pointed out, carers are usually undervalued; they refer to themselves as second-class citizens; they are underpaid, underqualified and under- resourced, with a chronic staffing shortage that is getting steadily worse.
There are too many adjectives there beginning “under”. It is no wonder that there is a turnover rate of nearly a third in such an underregarded profession, with poor levels of both retention and recruitment. As we have already been reminded, what is so obviously needed for carers is a combination of proper status, good and appropriate training, and reasonable pay. The report before us has significant implications for all of those, as pages 24 to 29 make clear.
With regard to status, if the social care workforce of 1.6 million is to be developed and stabilised, there needs to be more parity of esteem with their 1.4 million NHS colleagues. That necessitates a programme of vocational as well as academic training, which will provide social care staff with the qualifications and career structure that are currently lacking.
In its turn, that should prompt levels of pay, especially in publicly funded institutions, that begin to reflect the value to society of the service being offered. None of this can happen without a substantial increase in funding, which is why the report is so important. That is before even considering the possibility of support for the 5 million or so unpaid carers who do such a great job and save us vast sums of money every year.
However, it involves more than just financial commitment, crucial though that is. This report, like so many before it, is about a change of culture, which is why the greater integration of health and social care to which it refers is so vital. We have a renamed department, but the transformation that that implies must go beyond its title. When asked recently about his biggest hope for change, Sir Simon Stevens replied:
“Seeing health and social care as two sides of the same coin.”
The Select Committee on the Long-term Sustainability of the NHS has exactly the same aspiration.
It has already been observed that, despite many positive and encouraging statements over the years, there has so far been a huge political reluctance to grasp this particular nettle, despite the cross-party consensus mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I appreciate that much time and attention is currently focused elsewhere, but we would be grateful to know from the Minister whether Her Majesty’s Government have any timetable in mind for the sort of reform of our social care system that, as this report makes clear, is so urgently needed.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is an excellent report and its stark conclusions are as relevant today as when it was first published. Social care is severely underfunded, with the most deprived areas being the worst hit. More than a million adults who need social care are not receiving it and the system is riddled with unfairness. We are in a vicious cycle. After decades of reviews and failed reforms, the level of unmet need rises, the pressure on unpaid carers grows, the supply of care providers diminishes and the strain on the undervalued care workforce ever increases.
The core recommendation of £8 billion to be spent immediately to restore quality and access to adult social care has been widely supported. So, too, has the recommendation to introduce free personal care, such as help with washing, dressing or cooking, to be funded through general taxation over a period of five years, at a cost of £7 billion per year. The committee argues that this is simple, fair and not much more expensive than other proposals for reform. But, given the history of many reviews, we should not underestimate the barriers to its adoption, and I would like to mention five of those barriers.
First, adult social care has never commanded the priority that it deserves. The way that care homes have been dealt with over the pandemic is of course illustrative of this, with a lack of priority given to them in relation to PPE, testing and the movement of infected patients from hospitals to care homes.
Secondly, those in care homes would still pay for their accommodation and assistance with less critical needs like housework or shopping, so it is not the whole deal.
Thirdly, I am by no means certain that the costs of even limited free social care have been fully quantified. The experience of the NHS at its beginnings is instructive. Nye Bevan had assumed that, after a few years, the costs of the NHS would come down as the NHS caught up with the backlog of patients who had been unable to afford treatment before. That proved to be a trifle optimistic.
Scotland’s experience is relevant. The King’s Fund and Health Foundation 2018 report A Fork in the Road warned that the introduction of free personal care in Scotland had
“created unexpected levels of increased demand for domiciliary care which we might also expect to occur in England.”
They estimated that, with free personal care, the number of people receiving publicly funded domiciliary care in England would almost double. My concern is that free personal care would be underfunded and long waiting lists would be the result.
The fourth issue is that, in arguing for a mainly publicly funded solution, the committee’s hope for a market for private care insurance would be likely to develop in a system where personal care costs are funded by the state. This was the hope of Sir Andrew Dilnot who argued in his report, which the Government accepted, legislated for but never implemented, that limiting the risk for insurers by a cap on individual costs could help to provide a sustainable market for private social care insurance. The insurance market was unenthusiastic and I would like to hear more from the chair of the committee about how the committee thinks a more positive response would come from these proposals.
Fifthly, the committee says that cross-party co-operation will be necessary if progress is to be made on reforms to social care funding. I wish the committee well on this. Ever since Andrew Lansley’s description of Andy Burnham’s proposals in 2010 as a “death tax”, cross-party consensus has looked an ever distant dream, though I accept that it is desirable.
None the less, and despite the evident challenges, this is surely a good basis on which the Government can build their long-anticipated Green Paper.
Lord Razzall (LD) [V]
My Lords, this report was published in 2019 and I share the frustration of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, about the delay in debating it, which I must say is indicative of the treatment of social care by successive Governments.
The history is stark. As long ago as 1999, a royal commission proposed more generous means testing for residential care and free personal nursing care. Nothing happened in England, although I think that free care was introduced in Scotland. In 2011, the Dilnot commission proposed a cap on lifetime care and a more generous means test. The coalition Government legislated to implement these proposals, but the Conservative Government in 2015 postponed their introduction and, in 2017, this postponement became permanent. As Jeremy Hunt said earlier this week:
“It was the silent cut that people didn’t notice until too late”.
In 2017, the Conservative Government promised a Green Paper, but nothing happened, perhaps because of fears about the so-called dementia tax in that election campaign. The 2019 Conservative manifesto promised urgently to seek cross-party consensus on this issue—nothing has happened.
Urgent action, as all noble Lords have indicated, is now required. In 2018, 14% of older people were reported to have unmet care needs. This situation will clearly have deteriorated as a result of the pandemic. To make things worse, we know that, as we speak, there are over 100,000 unfilled vacancies for workers in residential homes—a possible side effect of Brexit—and we also know that finance, as the report says, is forcing care homes to prioritise people who are self-funding over local authority provision.
I therefore endorse the call in the report for cross-party consensus on social care and the demand for a White Paper now to set out the options for funding. I agree with the conclusion in the report that additional funding for adult social care should be provided as a government grant, paid directly to local authorities and funded from general taxation, and that personal care at home should be free. The current postcode lottery in domestic care provision is manifestly unfair. Is there any wonder that local authorities cannot cope, bearing in mind the cuts imposed by central government since 2010? I also agree that there should be a cap on residential care, as Dilnot recommended and as is suggested by the report.
But we should also not forget the position of unpaid carers, without whose help the whole system would collapse. It is estimated that there are 9 million unpaid carers in this country, many of whom have been badly affected by Covid, as Mencap demonstrated this week. The report emphasises the importance of not allowing the body of impartial carers to diminish. Is it too much to ask the Government to increase the carer’s allowance of £67 per week by a further £20 per week, as Sir Edward Davey has called for?
Baroness Hollins (CB) [V]
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for steering this excellent report. We can no longer ignore the impact that chronic underfunding and political indecision about adult social care are having on the well-being of individuals—something the pandemic has shone a spotlight on.
First, I question whether it is possible sensibly to debate social care for older people at the same time as social care for working-age disabled adults, who are far too often overlooked in debates on social care reform. Perhaps older adults have more political clout. It does not make sense to ignore or exclude a group which, according to the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, accounts for 64% of demographic pressures on the sector and approximately half of social care spending in England—I know that the noble Lord referred to this.
Secondly, we need a two-way collaboration between health and social care: interdependence rather than dependence. The NHS cures us of disease and mends bones; social care helps to cure loneliness, mends social inequalities and unlocks potential. For social care to achieve its mission, it must have personal fulfilment and independent living at its heart. For many working-age disabled adults, social care is not personal care but rather the support to develop skills such as cooking and maintaining a home so that they are able to make meaningful decisions about how to live their life and to grow in confidence, perhaps to find employment, to make friends and to play an active role in the community. Proposals that include funding mechanisms based on housing wealth, assets, floors, caps and insurance seem to forget about the impact that such models could have on working-age disabled adults. While free personal care would undoubtedly benefit many people, one concern is that underfunding could facilitate a drift towards the medicalisation of social care, where individuals’ horizons are reduced and the goal of the system becomes merely to keep someone alive.
Thirdly, social care must have a better-paid and trained professional workforce, with a meaningful career structure to reward dedicated staff and producing a talent pipeline that creates an avenue for experienced staff to develop, become mentors and pass on their knowledge and skills to a new generation. We know the problems that plague the workforce, including that some people take short-term jobs to fill employment gaps, but it is mainly that low pay and poor career progression lead to high turnover and poor retention. With more than 100,000 vacancies, we cannot underestimate the challenge. These problems are not new. In 2016, I chaired an expert reference group for Health Education England on building a direct support workforce to deliver the transforming care programme for people with a learning disability and/or autism who display behaviour described as challenging. Without adequate support and effective collaboration between social care and community mental health services, that group faces a real risk of ending up in inappropriate in-patient units at huge cost, both personal and financial. Of course, many people post Covid will want to avoid congregate care settings. This will need a different approach to career development and career structures.
The social care sector needs an immediate injection of funding to help improve pay and stabilise the sector, as many have already said, as well as reform in the ways that I have briefly outlined with respect to working-age disabled adults.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
Before I call the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, I remind all participating remotely to keep their microphones on mute unless they are called to speak.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con) [V]
My Lords, I refer to my interests as set out in the register. However, I have a personal interest in the subject of the report, as, way back in 1987, an announcement was made by the then South Lincolnshire Health Authority that it was to close Holbeach Hospital. I was active in the local community and the area generally and perceived this to be a considerable threat. The hospital provided general bed care; there were consulting rooms for out-patient clinics and a physiotherapy department. It worked with local GPs and hospital doctors to provide the substantial rural community with health and social care. To cut a long story short, with local support, we negotiated a takeover of the premises by forming a local charitable trust, which then raised the money needed to improve the building up to registration standard at nursing home level and entered into a contract with Lincolnshire County Council for the funding of 22 beds. An agreement was reached with the health authority to continue with six doctors’ beds, the out-patient clinics and the physiotherapy department. We reopened in 1989.
I chaired the Holbeach and East Elloe Hospital Trust for 18 years. When I came to your Lordships’ House, I became its patron. The trust has thrived and maintains support locally. As a result of income generated and bequests, we soon purchased the freehold and doubled the number of beds to 47, including 12 re-enablement beds under the doctors’ supervision.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean on chairing the committee and producing such a full report. Reforming the sector will be one of the most challenging undertakings for our Government. With such a complex system, it is important to look at all the options on the table. Notwithstanding the challenges, putting social care on a sustainable footing, where everybody is treated with dignity and respect, is imperative.
It is not as though we need a reminder, for the past year has shown just how vital this sector is for people who rely on social care. I welcome the Government’s recognition of the challenge that this sector faces during the pandemic by providing £1.1 billion of ring-fenced funding, which is vital to help put measures in place to improve infection prevention. How much funding have the Government made available for the costs associated with increased testing in care homes?
I want also to focus on the quality of care received by those who rely on adult social care. Despite increasing challenges, it is important that we recognise that the sector continues to provide high-quality care and support. I was encouraged to read that 85% of adult social care providers are currently rated good or outstanding by the Care Quality Commission. I think that the Committee will welcome this figure and want to pay tribute to the care givers, who are doing such a fine job, as many noble Lords have said, during such difficult circumstances.
All social policy areas have been put under pressure as a result of the pandemic, for they are interrelated. Social care, healthcare, pensions policy, the benefits system and even education all play a part in a civilised approach to need, even in the best of times. We need a consensus—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I remind the noble Lord that there is a four-minute speaking limit for this debate.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con) [V]
I hope that the report and the purpose of our debate on it will give the Government confidence that they can take Parliament with them in tackling this great issue.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as vice-president of Carers UK. I am greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for finally securing this debate and very pleased to participate—as pleased as I was, in fact, when I first read the report in July 2019, not just with its content but mostly that it existed at all.
In the 23 years I have been in your Lordships’ House, I have taken part in many debates on social care and have been wont to call those who join me “the usual suspects”. We were a relatively small band who banged on about this subject whenever we got the opportunity and frequently used the expression “a national scandal”, as it is used today. I have to tell your Lordships that it makes pretty depressing reading to go back to those other debates on social care because the problems remain the same and so little progress seems to have been made. But the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and his colleagues are not the usual suspects and they reached the same conclusions.
The committee found a situation which, I think it is safe to say, shocked its members. If it was bad in the summer of 2019, how much worse is it now after the ravages wrought by the pandemic? The situation is bad for everyone: for local authorities, for the NHS and for care homes. It is very bad for family carers, as the report acknowledges. We all know now that families and friends are holding the social care system together by providing support for the most vulnerable in society. Many were at breaking point before the current crisis and are now sick with worry. We are asking even more of these unpaid carers than ever before. They urgently need to be supported and their contribution, worth billions of pounds, recognised.
If Covid-19 and the additional focus it has brought on the inadequacy of the care system have any positive outcome, it may be that we are finally forced to take bold decisions about the funding and provision of social care. Over the years, we have all witnessed the endless recommendations about how to reform the system: the reviews, the royal commission, the unenacted legislation and, of course, the endless broken promises. What we need now is a decision of the level and quality that our forebears took in relation to the NHS, but this time it must be about reshaping health and social care around today’s needs, not those of the population of a post-war Britain.
We cannot go on as we are, trying to do more with less, managing demand by simply not meeting it and by being dishonest with the public and the voters. No Government have ever made it clear to the public that responsibility for paying for and arranging care rests with individuals and their families. If they are not prepared to reform the system, the Government must at least be prepared to promote clearer public understanding of how the system works, what people can expect and, more importantly, what they cannot expect.
This problem is not going to go away; it is only going to get worse. The question is not whether these costs will arise, but how they will be met. Will they be met by the public purse or by private individuals? Every independent review of the past 20 years has recommended that future funding of social care, as well as healthcare needs, should come from public, not private, finance. The needs of individuals cannot be divided up neatly into health or social care needs. The time for debate is surely over. We have enough research and experience to enable us to take this decision—to decide on reform. All we need is the will to do so. If we have the will, we can end this national scandal now.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
I now call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, after whom I will call the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD) [V]
My Lords, I do not claim expertise, as some of the earlier contributors to this debate obviously have. But at my age I do declare an interest—and if I have an interest, then I have some share in the embarrassment that politicians of all parties should feel at the fact that the problem of the care of the elderly has been so unresolved and for so long.
Reference has been made to the Sutherland report. It is important to remember that it arose out of a manifesto commitment of the incoming 1997 Labour Government, promising a royal commission into long-term care for the elderly. It was launched by the late and much-missed Frank Dobson, who was then the Secretary of State for Health. In doing so, he said that the arrangements for the long-term care of the elderly were so unsatisfactory that they could not be allowed to continue much longer. That was in 1997.
Sir Stewart Sutherland, as he then was—later, of course, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, and a Member of your Lordships’ House—was invited to conduct the royal commission, but his proposals were rejected by the Government as unrealistic and unaffordable. They were summed up in the expression now most frequently used as “free care for the elderly”. As has been mentioned, they were in fact implemented in Scotland, where it is fair to say that they have not been without criticism.
Let me fast forward, as we must, to the present. As has been said, in July 2019 the Prime Minister said he had a plan to give every elderly person “dignity and security”—remember those words. The Conservatives’ manifesto for the 2019 election claimed that they would build a cross-party consensus to answer the problem. Nothing has happened in respect of that. In January 2020, the Prime Minister yet again said that he had a plan; in June 2020, the Health Secretary said something similar. It is to the credit of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that he has not allowed this matter to rest.
I am struck by the conclusions in the report, a few of which I will refer to: on inadequate funding, increased demand, pressure on family members to fill the gaps, and the geographical disparity in provision across the country. These issues are not new but have been characteristics of this problem for as long as it has been recognised. It is not necessary to agree with every word of every sentence of this admirable report but let me point out this: the Labour Government failed, the coalition Government failed, and the present Government are failing, by way of procrastination.
I will leave your Lordships with this thought to finish. Think of the thousands of elderly men and women who have suffered indignity and insecurity since 1997. That is why I join the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, in saying that we should not feel embarrassed; we should feel ashamed.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. It is an abject failure on the part of our political system that the reform of social care funding has not been achieved to date. I will refer briefly to what was my responsibility. In 2010, I asked Andrew Dilnot to prepare a review and make recommendations. His proposals continue to form a part of what should be the reform of social care funding in the future, but I do not think that people quite appreciate the value of what he proposed. It was not just that there would be a cap on the costs people would have to meet, creating, as it were, a fundable and insurable proposition. It is also that there would be a substantial increase in the capital thresholds and a taper, such that under his proposals nobody would have had to lose more than 40% of their total assets.
That would give people the reassurance, even if they were to self-insure or be self-funders, that they would not work all their lives and then find, as a consequence of the catastrophic effects of Alzheimer’s or dementia, for example, that they lost everything and their families got nothing. We have to arrive at this point and make this funding reform happen. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and his committee that the cost will not be met simply by the Dilnot reforms. It will require a major injection of government funding. The cost of personal care support should be shared between individuals and the state. To my mind, the great benefit of Andrew Dilnot’s proposals is that people pay towards their costs with only a proportion of their assets; they do not lose all that they have built up during their lives.
I want to make one other point. Why did it not happen? We legislated for it in the Care Act 2014 and it was supposed to happen after the 2015 election. I was not a part of government at that point. I remember somebody in the Treasury saying to me that because part of the process of paying for this involved removing the domiciliary care exemption for people’s own homes, 200,000 people would pay more and only 100,000 would benefit. This quite ignored the fact that most of the 100,000 who would benefit at any time would themselves, on some previous occasion, have been the recipients of domiciliary care.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is quite right: if we go down this path and do not remove the anomaly of the domiciliary care exemption for one’s own home, we will have an enormous increase in domiciliary care relative to residential care. This would not be desirable, so it has to be paid for. National insurance on older workers is clearly one part of it and removing the domiciliary care exemption is another, but a broader contribution from taxpayers will inevitably be part of it too. But it should not be taxpayers alone, otherwise the intergenerational lack of fairness of young people contributing to the future care of older people, in circumstances where those older people do not contribute but have large assets, would be intolerable.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP) [V]
My Lords, this is one of those issues that many people do not think about until it affects them or a family member. Successive Governments have thought about it a considerable amount but have chosen to do nothing. As a result, it has become —as described by the National Pensioners Convention, among many others—the Cinderella of public services, inadequately funded and not delivering for many people, when they need it most. This debate, therefore, is important although belated. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and for this most comprehensive report and findings, which are relevant not just to England but to other parts of the United Kingdom.
The Covid pandemic has exacerbated many of the problems that we face and accelerates the need for reform. There always seems to be a good reason—not least financial—to put off reform in this area; it keeps being delayed and delayed. It was good that, in his first speech as Prime Minister, Boris Johnson promised to fix the crisis in social care but, as many noble Lords have rightly said, we now need action. I trust that the Government will soon produce proposals to support and sustain a modern social care system, and that these will be implemented as quickly as possible. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us what his timescale for reform is.
There is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding around what the state can and cannot provide in social care, unlike the care provided by the National Health Service, which is free at the point of need. The United Kingdom faces a growing ageing population, with higher, more complex health needs. The decline of family and community networks increases the demand for public services. The costs of social care are a significant burden and fear for older people and their families. Social care should be treated, like the NHS, as a core public service: people need to be able to access it when they need it, at all times. That means sustainable funding over the long term, not continued short-term fixes, if they can be called that.
Many families are shocked to discover the labyrinthine process that they have to negotiate when they seek help, at a time when there is often a great deal of stress and strain. The do not understand how health needs are fully met by the state and free at the point of need, yet care needs are means-tested. This can lead to terrible shocks when they are faced with massive care costs. We need to move to the position of free personal care for those who need it, at the very least.
A high quality of care is absolutely essential and, for that, as other noble Lords have said, there must be proper training for care workers, which invests in and respects them, in the same way as there is for those who work for our National Health Service. Low pay needs to be urgently addressed, as do ways to improve retention and recruitment of staff. I add my voice to those who have already talked about recognition and support for the millions of unpaid family carers, who do an incredible job delivering a considerable amount of care across this country, in normal circumstances, but who, during the pandemic, have worked heroically to care for and protect their relatives at home. Many of them are elderly, and likely to suffer from poor health themselves and be in the lowest income bracket. There are estimated to be over 1 million people, maybe 1.5 million, aged over 65 with an unmet care need. That is truly shocking in this day and age. The current system is disjointed, piecemeal and underfunded. That must end as soon as possible.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, 12 years ago, I was the chairman of the Care Quality Commission, the regulator for the quality of health and social care. I was chilled when I saw the impact of the funding arrangements for social care on people’s access to care and the quality of care they received. Nothing much has changed in the funding system over these 12 years. In the meantime, adult social care needs are rising exponentially and funding has decreased in real terms, even with the recent additions to budgets. Local authorities are responding by raising the eligibility bar for social care, so that you have to be on your knees or virtually destitute to get funded care.
People who cannot access care are hidden at home and are a burden on unpaid carers. For those who can access it, what is the quality of that care? Much care provision at the higher end of the spectrum is fine, but it became clear to me at the CQC that care providers, funded at the very basic levels that local authorities can afford, simply cannot provide a quality service at that cost; nor can they pay the staff who deliver it more than the minimum wage. Providers either live on the edge of going bust or flee to the self-pay end of the business.
The result is that many of the less well-off in our society, who have been unable to amass savings or capital, because they have been in poorly paid jobs or unable to work due to illness or disability, are in a poor position. They are faced with a lack of access to services, poor-quality services and being looked after by staff who are often transient and paid a minimum wage, and have no qualifications and little training. I ask noble Lords: would you relish that prospect for your mum or disabled member of your family or—now that we are getting older—for you or me?
Successive Governments have failed to grasp the nettle. In 2019, the Conservative manifesto committed to building cross-party consensus and bringing forward a lasting solution, but it has not. It spoiled that assertion by continuing the old Conservative shibboleth that no one should have to sell their home. I believe that equity release schemes should not be off the table.
Three things need to happen. First, cross-party consensus talks should be set up now, be independently chaired and have a strict deadline to bring forward both proposals and implementation plans. Secondly, a progressive and pooled contributory system for pre-funding care costs should be set up, as a matter of urgency. It should be kept simple and communicated effectively to the public, in personal terms that talk about care for their family members, so that we get away from these appalling headlines of “death taxes” and “dementia taxes”. Thirdly, radical changes in social care staffing should be fast-tracked, covering qualifications, training, regulation and pay.
The Economic Affairs Committee is right: it is time to end a national scandal. The Government are politically nervous about tackling the issue, as a result of the sorts of headlines I talked about. Right now, Covid has meant that the public understand the challenges and importance of social care more than ever before. Can the Minister tell us that the Government will act now and that we will not get another Green Paper, and that we stop letting down the most vulnerable in society and the staff who are trying hard, against all the odds, to care for them?
Lord Young of Cookham (Con) [V]
My Lords, at a time when your Lordships’ House is under fire, there can be no better example of its value than the document we are debating. The committee achieved in a matter of weeks what has eluded Governments for over 20 years.
In December 2000, the Queen’s Speech said:
“The legislation will also take forward my Government's response to the Royal Commission on Long Term Care for the Elderly.”—[Official Report, 6/12/00; col. 2.]
That was the Sutherland commission. Nothing happened. At the end of the Labour Government’s time, they were back where they started with the 2009 Green Paper Shaping the Future of Care Together. The coalition agreement echoed what Labour said in 1997:
“We will establish a commission on long-term care, to report within a year.”
But Dilnot suffered the same fate as Sutherland.
In 2017, the Queen’s Speech said:
“My Ministers will work to improve social care and will bring forward proposals for consultation.”—[Official Report, 21/6/17; col. 6.]
Nothing happened. The last Queen’s Speech said:
“My Ministers will seek cross-party consensus on proposals for long term reform of social care.”—[Official Report, 19/12/19; col. 7.]
Again, nothing happened, as the noble Lords, Lord Razzall and Lord Campbell, said. That is the background to the substantial achievement of my noble friend and his committee.
Some critics may say that this consensus has been achieved at an unaffordable price—not so. The chairman of the committee, my noble friend Lord Forsyth, is a notable hawk when it comes to public expenditure. I put “Lord Forsyth, control of public expenditure” into Google and got 860,000 hits. On his committee are two former Chancellors and two former Treasury Permanent Secretaries, with the imperative of public expenditure restraint in their very DNA—I do not imply that the other noble Lords on the committee are a soft touch. This is not a body of men and women who will come up with something unaffordable. The next step should be a White Paper and legislation.
I have two comments to make in the time available. I do not agree with paragraph 8:
“We share the concerns of many witnesses about the Government’s plans to make local authorities more fiscally self-reliant.”
I think local authorities should become less dependent on central government, not more, and I hope the forthcoming Green Paper will give them more powers and a broader income base. I understand the committee’s concern that some local authorities are less able to spend on social care than others, but that should be rectified through the revenue support grant, not by making all local authorities more dependent on the Government.
My other comment is about the moral hazard from free personal care, touched on in paragraph 106:
“There may be a deadweight cost to the introduction of free personal care.”
It is a dead weight as some will no longer have to pay and others may opt out of caring to benefit from the free package.
This raises the broader issue of responsibility between the family on one hand and the state on the other, touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and my noble friend Lord Lansley. Dilnot’s view is straightforward:
“For those who can afford [social care] it should not be free”.
But that does not address the fundamental problem that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, identified in his powerful speech—the unfairness of the present regime for people with, for example, dementia. A possible way to minimise both the moral hazard of people opting out and the initial cost is to look again at activities that might qualify for free personal care—for example, cooking and dressing. These activities could be performed by family members without imposing huge burdens on them. Therefore, to bring the costs down initially, they might be excluded from the free package where there is an alternative. But this is a detail that we can iron out when, as I very much hope, legislation based on this high-quality report is introduced in the next Session of Parliament.
Baroness Pidding (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and the members of the Economic Affairs Committee for the production of such a thought-provoking and rightly challenging report and for initiating this important debate.
While there are clearly long-term issues that need to be addressed, in my view the Government’s number one priority during the current coronavirus crisis should be to ensure that adult social care is available for everyone who relies on it and that they get the care that they need throughout the Covid-19 pandemic. My brief comments today concentrate on this.
I know that, as we started 2021, many families had hoped that we would slowly return to our normal lives, but the new lockdown has shown the unpredictability of living life in a pandemic. This demonstrates the real need to make sure that the sector has all the resources that it needs to continue offering care.
I hope that in his response the Minister will be able to tell the House more about the £120 million workforce capacity fund and how that funding is going to help the sector to deal with the growing workload as a result of the pandemic. The winter months in particular are more difficult for those who need care and those who support them. The Secretary of State for Health outlined the adult social care winter plan last September. I would like to ask the Minister two questions in relation to that plan. First, what feedback have the Government received from the adult social care stakeholders in response to that plan? Secondly, how has the plan been adapted in the wake of the new variant of Covid-19 and the lockdown that has followed?
Lastly, I want to pay tribute to all those who work in the sector—all the carers, nurses, support staff and their families, especially in these exceptionally difficult times.
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I should remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
This is an impressive report and I congratulate the committee on its work in addressing the key issues so effectively and on trying to encourage some urgency in government thinking. I want to talk about resources and, in particular, the funding issues identified by the committee in paragraphs 156 and 157. I agree with the committee’s conclusion:
“Social care funding should not be reliant on locally raised revenue which has little connection to local demand for social care.”
I also agree with this:
“The additional funding needed for adult social care should be provided as a government grant, distributed directly to local authorities according to an appropriate national funding formula which takes into account differences between local authorities in demand for care and ability to raise funds from local taxation.”
That is the right approach. I just wish the Government would share the committee’s view that social care funding should not be as reliant on locally raised revenue as it is now.
Unfortunately, there has been a deliberate government policy to force up council tax well above the rate of inflation to help to pay for social care by means of the social care precept that the Government introduced in 2016. This has resulted in council tax payers being required to pay up to 15% more over the last five years. Presumably, in the absence of any solution to the funding crisis, council tax will go on being increased in this way through the life of this Parliament. This approach means that councils able to generate higher receipts from their council tax base can raise more money for social care than poorer councils, when it is often the poorer councils that have the greatest demand for social care.
At the general election in December 2019, the Conservative Party manifesto guaranteed not to increase income tax, national insurance or VAT in this Parliament. These three taxes bring in almost two-thirds of UK tax revenues, so the decision not to increase them means that the Government intend other taxes to bear the burden. Council tax is one of those, so, for a sixth year now, council tax is increasing well above the rate of inflation. Up to 5% is permitted from April, of which a maximum 3% increase is for the adult social care precept. We should be very concerned about this and the fact that this constant rise in council tax forced on councils impacts most of all on poorer families who are already facing greater financial pressures from the pandemic.
Lord Sarfraz (Con) [V]
My Lords, our country’s care system has never been under such pressure as over the last year. I am sure that noble Lords are as grateful as I am to live in a country that could financially afford to step up to the challenges of the pandemic and has worked day and night to make sure that everyone is treated with dignity and respect. Many countries around the world do not have our financial resources—we are indeed very fortunate.
The numbers speak for themselves. The Government have made available £4.6 billion to local authorities to address pressures on local services. There is an additional £1 billion of funding available for social care in 2021-22. Public spending on adult social care services has increased in real terms in every year since 2015, reaching £18.8 billion in 2020. In 2021-22, the Government expect to provide local authorities with estimated funding of around £3 billion to help to manage the impact of Covid across their services. These are very substantial numbers, but they are not just numbers. They translate into countless real people and real families getting the care that they need.
However, the funding system needs reform. This is indeed a complex area and I welcome the Government’s proposals on improvement, which I understand will be brought forward this year. I also welcome the Government’s appreciation that anyone needing care should never have to sell their home to pay for it.
The number of home care agencies in England has significantly increased, from 5,780 in 2010 to 10,294 in January of this year. That is almost double the number of home care agencies. According to CQC registration data, pressures on adult social care from the pandemic do not appear to be translating into significant amounts of reduced capacity or service closures, but this data should of course continue to be closely monitored.
We are not without challenges. Some providers of care settings designated for the discharge of Covid-positive individuals from hospitals have had difficulties securing sufficient levels of commercial insurance cover. This is why I welcome the recent ministerial Statement that new arrangements will provide temporary, state-backed indemnity cover for clinical negligence, employer liability and public liability to designated settings that have been unable to source adequate insurance cover.
This has been an incredibly difficult year for all of us, but there is clear evidence of the tremendous work and effort that the Government have put into ensuring that our care system delivers for everybody. There is always more to do and areas where improvements must continue to be made.
Finally, I would like to pay tribute to all those workers in care settings, who have faced probably the most difficult year of their professional lives and have made our country so very proud.
Lord Truscott (Ind Lab) [V]
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, and the Economic Affairs Committee on their incisive report. Social care funding has become a postcode lottery, as he said at the outset of this debate, and a national disgrace. Her Majesty’s Government should increase funding by at least £10 billion to restore the 2009-11 levels of quality and access. I agree that social care should be largely funded by general taxation. It should not be funded by local authorities, which, as we have heard, results in variegated levels of care across the country. However, given the challenges facing social care provision, we should be even more ambitious. The old age dependency ratio is increasing, while the number of working-age adults needing care is multiplying. Those receiving social care should not rely on future generations to cover their care costs. Deferred payment agreements should be a right so that no one receiving care is ever forced to sell their home while in care.
Social care should be paid for through taxation. Let me be specific. Those receiving care should pay for it through an inheritance tax, formerly and more properly called death duties, paid on their passing from their estate only if they have the means. The existing £500,000 inheritance threshold could be maintained. A majority of beneficiaries would not be affected; they would receive that inheritance only after the tax was paid. For example, the Tax Research UK blog has estimated that if inheritance tax was raised to 80%, double the current rate and similar to that paid after the Second World War, it could raise £174 billion—virtually enough to pay for the entire pandemic, let alone social care.
We have to recognise that we are facing a wartime-like crisis exacerbated by the pandemic, which requires a wartime-like response. Currently, a lucky half of young people will inherit 90% of the nation’s wealth; the rest will struggle. Of that wealth, 90% is presently owned by just half of elderly households. The desire to leave everything to one’s family and siblings is not as strong as it once was. Equity release is increasingly popular. People want to enjoy their lives now but be secure in their own homes in old age for as long as possible. Domiciliary care is the preferred option for many, and it should be provided by the state.
Instead of taxing the general population and businesses into the ground or looking at a wealth or property tax, we should tax people for their social care only after they have passed. This avoids squeezing the asset-rich and cash-poor while they are alive. It would be a death duty, not an inheritance tax. There would still be plenty to inherit. Inheritance has doubled in the last 20 years and is expected to do so again in the next 20. If the issue of funding social care and other essential public services is not addressed, and the lucky half benefits by inheriting the bulk of the country’s wealth, intergenerational inequality will worsen—something the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned. Instead of levelling up, the Government will find that they have created even more inequality and regional disparities, and our society and public services will be the poorer for it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, is not able to take part in the debate, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We were told that you were not on the call at the beginning of the debate and did not hear it.
Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]
I was on the call and heard the beginning. But if that is your ruling, Chair, that is fine.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
No; we do not want to deny you the opportunity. Please speak to us now, Lord Liddle.
Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]
I am very sorry; I was on the call and heard the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I first pay tribute to him for his chairmanship of the committee, and his ability to produce an objective analysis and a report that commands a wide degree of consensus. I have always regarded him as one of the finest speakers in the House but he is normally making arguments I totally disagree with, so I am delighted to be able to congratulate him on this report.
Secondly, I declare my interest as a member of Cumbria County Council. That is very relevant to this debate because, frankly, we cannot go on as we are with what are, basically, patchwork solutions to the funding crisis in social care while relying on council tax supplements to fund the bulk of the patching that is necessary. We are in a terrible dilemma this year in Cumbria. Should we put up council tax by 5% in real terms during this Covid crisis, when so many workers are on low incomes and the self-employed are in great difficulty? It is very unfair. It would be unfair in any event because council tax is very inequitable in the way that its burden falls. We must find a better solution. I was pleased that when we debated this, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, said that in his view council tax needed reform. That would be a very good first step.
Thirdly, this is an area where we have to be prepared to contemplate some unconventional state intervention. I am a free market man by nature, or a social market man, but on wages, working conditions and training, we should go back to some kind of wages council cum training board which is determined with a remit to raise standards in this sector.
Finally, there is a need for some intervention to sort out the corporate structure of the sector. Far too many care home chains have been ruined by private equity and loaded up with debt. This needs sorting out without giving a present to the shareholders, so some government intervention is required. I am also in favour of a reform of inheritance tax and of the charging system so that people do not lose the whole of their wealth that they want to pass on but the burden of social care is, basically, paid by the better off through a reform of wealth taxation.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con) [V]
My Lords, in recognising that the unifying message of this debate is to call on government to act, I want in the brief time I have available to comment on three areas.
The first is adult social care reform. I start by seeking reassurance from my noble friend the Minister that the Government intend to continue to work closely with local and national partners to ensure that the approach to reform is informed by diverse perspectives, but in particular from those with lived experience of the care sector, both providers and recipients. It is clear that a stable social care provider market and a qualified and committed workforce will be absolutely central to delivering the widely held ambition for raising the quality of, and access to, social care. Equally important are the recipients of care, and I hope that reform will not come at the price of the long-held desire to empower them by supporting people to live independently in their own homes and communities, for as long as possible.
My own 90 year-old father’s desire to stay in his own home comes above all else. One of the biggest challenges he faces, though, is the quality of information on offer to assess his options. I welcome the Government’s plans to tackle this issue. This is particularly important if we are to encourage recipients and their families to make decisions about their long-term care ahead of time, so they are enabled to plan for their care and make better choices rather than ending up forced into knee-jerk decisions.
The second regards the workforce. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the social care workforce in all their forms, paid and unpaid, who have more than ever demonstrated unwavering compassion and dedication while under the most enormous pressure during this pandemic. As we have heard, one particularly irritating aspect is that they are often spoken about as being “unskilled” and paid accordingly. The reality is that few jobs require a more diverse range of skills, particularly soft skills.
It is vital that the spotlight we have seen placed on the social care workforce during the Covid-19 pandemic is transformed into a long-lasting legacy of recognition for them. This would perhaps help address the biggest single challenge facing the sector, which remains recruitment, despite two successful recent government-backed campaigns.
The Government announced a £600 million infection control fund in May 2020, now extended until March 2021 with an additional £540 million. This is most welcome, not least because it can be used for measures such as helping maintain the normal wages of staff who may need to self-isolate. Equally welcome has been the £120 million of additional funding that was announced earlier this month to help local authorities boost staffing levels in the care sector. What lessons have been learned from the use of this fund when it comes to delivering resilience to a fragile sector once the pandemic is over?
However, the vast majority of care workers are employed by private sector providers, who ultimately set their pay independently of central government. While local authorities work with care providers to determine a fair rate of pay based on local market conditions, I would be interested in my noble friend’s view as to whether the time has come for the Government to consider setting a national benchmark.
The final area concerns quality of care. We need to recognise that the vast majority of care services provide high-quality care and support. As of January 2021, 84.6% of adult social care settings are currently rated good or outstanding by the Care Quality Commission, and, for most people, the experience of adult social care and support is incredibly positive. However, one of the biggest single factors in determining the CQC rating for a care home is the quality of the management, which is why my final question for my noble friend the Minister is: should we consider, as the report highlights, a more structured approach to continual professional development for the sector?
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]
My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and his committee on this excellent report, proposing clear recommendations in what is a very complex area. I agree with many of them and underline the strong sentiment that we do not need further reviews, consultation or Green Papers; we need government action now or a White Paper with a clear implementation timescale.
Covid has cast a harsh spotlight on a highly fragmented, fragile and underfunded sector reliant on unpaid carers and piecemeal local arrangements, with care providers going out of business or handing back contracts. Other serious flaws in the system include a widespread lack of awareness that social care is not free at the point of use, underpaid staff with little career progression or professional development—leading to high vacancy rates and turnover—and a postcode lottery which leads to unjustifiable variations between places in access to care and its quality, often depending on a local authority’s ability to raise revenue.
The adult social care winter plan commits to providing free PPE to care homes until after the pandemic. What plans do the Government have to extend this pledge until at least late spring? Despite some short-term injections of government funding since 2017, years of significant underfunding, coupled with rising demands and costs, have combined to push adult social care services to breaking point. The Select Committee report points out that funding for adult social care in 2017 was below 2010 levels. It calls for an immediate injection of £8 million to restore care quality and access to 2010 standards, with free personal care available universally by 2025. I fully support these recommendations.
Any long-term reform must take account of the needs of working-age adults, who account for nearly half of the total social care budget, and unpaid carers as well as older people. Many working-age disabled people do not own their own houses—which, unfortunately, is how this political debate is mainly couched—and have not been able to save for care costs.
When it comes to paying for a new system that includes free personal care as a universal entitlement, it will have to be a partnership of public funding and private contributions by the citizen. Like the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I believe that we should look for a solution through the prism of intergenerational fairness—a way in which all generations contribute but no one generation feels unfairly burdened. The Select Committee report touches briefly on this issue, which is to be applauded.
However, there is one aspect on which I take a different view from the committee. Rather than our relying primarily on raising the money needed from general taxation, I would like to see a funding solution with some element of hypothecation. I had considerable sympathy with the recommendation of the Barker commission that an additional percentage point of employee national insurance contributions for those aged over 40, raising some £2 billion in total, be earmarked for adult social care. This is similar in concept to the proposal put forward by the Intergenerational Fairness Forum of a new system of social care insurance contributions, at a rate of 1%, from the incomes of all working adults from the age of 40 until they stop working. Looking to the over-65s, as I argued in our debate earlier this week on inter-generational fairness, the case for individuals who continue to work beyond state pension age continuing to make national insurance contributions should also be part of the equation.
The shockingly high number of deaths in care homes in the first wave of the pandemic is a matter of national shame. We owe it to those who died and their families to ensure that a properly funded social care system, providing quality care to all, is a fitting legacy.
Baroness Fookes (Con) [V]
My Lords, I applaud the hard-hitting and very practical report of my noble friend Lord Forsyth and his committee, and I hope that it will provide a real springboard for the Government to take action at last—like many other speakers, I think “at last” is very much the phrase to use. I also applaud the masterly overview provided by my noble friend Lord Young, and I hope that that will also be taken seriously into consideration.
I do not pretend to have the kind of expertise that other Members in this afternoon’s debate have shown, but I remember, as a very young, inexperienced MP, wondering why there was a divide between healthcare and social care—it seemed to be wholly artificial. Now, with my greater experience, I realise that it was a tremendous error which has led to the social side being left behind and, as many others have said, badly treated in terms of the workers, their pay and so forth. I hope that, in future, there will be a much better effort to bring together these two sides of the profession, as I see it.
I have some, rather unusual experience of being in a residential care home after a very serious illness some four years ago. I did not feel able to go to my own home alone, so I was fortunately able to book into a very good residential care home, but what I saw amazed me. There were good workers, and I was greatly impressed by the care they showed to the various residents, including me, and the great skills that were required. It was a real eye-opener for me, and it makes me very anxious that they should all receive proper training and have a proper career structure and better payments. I very much hope that this will be one result of the debate we are having this afternoon, based as it is on the excellent report by my noble friend Lord Forsyth.
In a very short time, I will pay tribute to the unpaid carers—in other words, family and friends of people who need care, who do it for nothing. However, it does not come as nothing for them: in many cases, they will have had to give up, quite possibly, well-paid jobs because they cannot combine really good careers, and all that they involve, with caring on a day-to-day basis. It is not necessarily that they were unskilled or low-paid workers themselves, and, therefore, the sacrifice from them is very much greater. I do not think that this has ever been recognised.
I would be interested to know what the cost would be if we paid even the minimum wage to all those unpaid carers; we might then get a much better idea of the valuable service that they provide. We should take far more care of them, giving them some respite care in particular—because I feel that many of them get to the end of their tether. If they could just have a nice little break, it would permit them to go on, whereas, in other circumstances, they break completely. I hope that this will be the end of the pussyfooting of various Governments and that we actually get on and do something for the social care sector.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I also commend the members of the committee for their impressive report. We are fortunate to have such distinguished and experienced Members of the House of Lords focusing their attention on one of the most difficult and urgent problems of our time.
Despite that urgency, and as many others have said, this it is a problem that successive Governments have ultimately failed to confront, although I was struck by the comments from Care England, in the report, about the lack of progress over many years, despite all the different reviews and commissions,
“all of which seem to come to similar conclusions—the system needs to be properly funded.”
The committee has made its recommendations and they have been broadly welcomed. While I fully appreciate the difficulties of the past year caused by the pandemic, I hope the Minister will be able to give some indication as to when the Government will be able to respond to its recommendations.
I also appreciate that, for there to be a proper response to this issue, there needs to be the type of cross-party co-operation that the committee has so ably demonstrated. For there to be wider consensus, there needs to be a better understanding of the social care system. The committee quite rightly says that, for this to happen, the system needs to be less complex and easier to understand.
I am no expert in this area but I emphasise that, if we are to have a proper conversation, we need to stop treating social care as the NHS’s poor relation. As demonstrated by this debate, this is not a new concept by any means and was part of the 2019 Conservative Party manifesto, but the pandemic proved again that we have some way to go. The desire to protect the NHS was understandable, but we now know that policies designed to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed pushed a greater burden on to care homes. Yet again, social care was deemed the second-class citizen.
As my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean pointed out, by 2023-24, the NHS annual funding increase will be
“more than the entirety of local authority adult social care expenditure.”
This situation surely cannot continue, but if any good has come from the pandemic, it is a greater focus on and appreciation of the fundamental role that social care plays in protecting many of our most vulnerable.
Care England suggested in the report that there was
“a hesitancy by politicians to increase funding for a system that is not well understood by the public”.
Meanwhile, the Nuffield Trust pointed out that new proposals
“are often put forward as part of election campaigns at a point in the electoral cycle when there is minimal incentive for cross-party cooperation.”
As we reach a point of greater understanding and with some years until the next election, I sincerely hope that this is the time to find consensus and for Government to finally come forward with the solution that has evaded us for so long.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, this is a fine report. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will forgive me if I concentrate my remarks on the recommendation with which I profoundly disagree, which is that of free personal care introduced over the next five years, so that it is universally available by 2025-26. I can at least claim to be consistent on this, because I signed a minority to the report to the royal commission saying so.
Why? It is bloody expensive—£7 billion. That is the same amount as is said to be needed to be put into the present system to make it workable. I would prefer to see this money devoted to better care for the less well-off. It would inflate demand. In Scotland, the demand for care in people’s homes doubled when free personal care was introduced. Speaking now as a socialist—if that is allowed—56% of people in need of care, more than half, are paid for by the state already. The £7 billion I have talked about would all go to the remaining 44%, most of them not rich people, but comfortably off. It seems an extraordinary proposition that the state should pick the pockets of the less well-off to subsidise the better off.
The weepy old argument drummed up to whip up support for free care is that people are forced to sell their homes to pay for it. This is simply not the case. First, if you are getting care at home or go into a care home leaving a dependant in your house, the value of the house is excluded from the means test, so you are not forced to sell because you need the money.
Secondly, anyone who does not want to sell can go to the local authority and borrow the money, which is repaid after their death. They do not have to sell their home during their lifetime.
Thirdly—this has been referred to—there is an alternative route for most homeowners that does not involve the state at all. You take out an equity mortgage on your house and use the proceeds to buy an immediate-needs insurance policy, which will go on paying your care home fees for as long as you live—problem solved. L&G, which is the most progressive company, recently went into this market offering increasingly innovative policies. They solve most of the problems that we are worried about with older people having to pay for care.
Finally, and more consensually, I strongly endorse the committee’s emphasis on the need for consensus. It has been tried before, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was saying. First, the Tories branded Labour’s proposals a “death tax”. Secondly, Labour branded the Tories’ proposals a “dementia tax”. This is no way to do business.
I would like to make a positive proposal for how to stop it. You need not exactly a chairman but an appointed neutral mediator, who tries to find common ground between the parties. The great advantage of that, and I have had personal experience of this, is that, if one party or the other tries to get off the agenda and seize party-political advantage by sabotaging the talks, the mediator can call out the offender. I am hopeful that, if you had talks with such a mediator, you could produce a system that, more or less, satisfies everyone.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, being the 28th speaker in the debate, I fear that all that needs to be said has been said. I do not wish to repeat points that already have been made. Therefore, I limit my contribution to, first, thanking the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and his committee for this excellent report. It will bring tears to the eyes of those who read it, particularly carers, those who need support and the general public. I say well done to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and the committee. I plead to the Committee to support this report and bring the greatest possible pressure on the Government to commit £8 billion immediately.
Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I know we all agree that the committee’s report is an excellent contribution to the debate on the future of social care funding. In it, the committee recommends that adult social care is given a long-term sustainable funding settlement for the benefit of those who use and work in these services. I absolutely agree with these sentiments.
As this report highlights, publicly funded social care support is reducing, as smaller budgets have forced local authorities to limit the number of people who receive public funding. Covid-19 has shown the value of social care services and their importance to our society, but the pandemic has also added significantly to the financial pressures on council services. In its submission to the Treasury’s budget consultation, the LGA called on the Government to use the announcement to set out a clear timescale with specific deadlines for how reforms to adult social care provision, eligibility and funding will be introduced. A programme of reform for social care, led by national government, will be essential as we look to improve services and reduce inequalities.
The legacy of Covid-19 for social care and, most importantly, the people who use social care services, must be a reset, not simply a restart. This impetus should spur our thinking around long-term reform of care and support, which should be built on cross-party co-operation, as has already been mentioned. I hope that the Government will work with all parts of the social care world, particularly people with lived experience and local authorities, on a way forward that is informed by the many valuable lessons from the response to Covid-19 on the role and value of social care in all our lives.
I would also like to see the Government commit to a new deal for the care workforce, comprising action on pay, training and development, career progression and professionalisation, and recognition. To achieve those aims, the LGA has suggested that the Government commission an independent review to gather evidence and make recommendations, so that planning for the future of pay and reward in adult social care can begin. Ultimately, we must think about adult social care as an economic opportunity, rather than an economic cost. Reforming pay and reward for those working in adult social care will attract people to work in the sector, fill existing vacancies and benefit local economies.
Adult social care can play an important role as we seek to recover from the pandemic. In bringing my remarks to a close, I point out that the response to Covid-19 has highlighted the essential value of social care to the wider public. It is vital that this support be harnessed to deliver the long-term reform of the adult social care system that we so urgently need. I look forward to working with the Government and Members in both Houses to take this agenda forward.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, has withdrawn from the debate, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Browning.
Baroness Browning (Con) [V]
My Lords, I fully support this report. There are one or two things in some of the detail of it that I would like to see tweaked, but the thrust of it is absolutely right. This is a national scandal and it is far beyond time that the Government started to put it right. I support everybody who has said that this report should be the basis of a White Paper and not a Green Paper, because action is now needed.
I want to make merely a couple of points that are perhaps not covered in the report. I was reminded, when we were talking earlier in the debate about trusts, of the not-for-profit sector, which I believe has a lot to offer, particularly in care homes. Around the country, there are many homes that are run by trusts—we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that new ones have been set up under trusteeships. Their great advantage is that, very often, they are small and locally based and therefore serve a particular client base. One hardship of the instability of the care home sector is that, when homes close, people often need to be moved well away from their relatives and areas where they have lived for many years. Therefore, in order to provide nationally a good mix of care that is affordable and of good quality, the not-for-profit sector could play a much bigger role than it does now. I would like us to look at that in a White Paper.
I will also pick up the funding of personal care, which many speakers have mentioned. I can see why some colleagues with a big local government interest are not very keen on this because they can see the bill. We are looking at billions; this is not a penny-on-income-tax policy. But we should look in more detail at what we mean by personal care. What does the day of somebody who needs personal care look like? It is not just about whether they can get dressed or have a meal provided by somebody in the household. Very often, particularly for those with Alzheimer’s or dementia, it is a question of not knowing what clothes to put on and perhaps dressing in the most inappropriate clothes. When it comes to food, it a matter of have they eaten or have they not? People with dementia may forget within half an hour that they have in fact eaten. Maintaining nutrition is therefore very important. This is a group of people who will wake up at 4.30 am or 5 am and think it is time to get up. They need full 24/7 care.
None of this is “medical” according to the definition of the word, but the demands and effect on carers can be quite catastrophic if those basic needs are not met. A failure in nutrition or in personal hygiene—for people who cannot look after themselves as far as their personal hygiene is concerned—can cause urinary tract infections or all sorts of problems that lead quickly to the need for doctors to be called or hospitalisation. I therefore would not underestimate the importance of personal care. It is something that must be factored in.
We have heard a lot about the political parties coming together; I agree that they will need to join together if this is to be successful, but please can we still do more to bring together social services and the NHS? In my experience as a Member of Parliament, whenever I came across a problem in this area, I would have to personally call for a case conference—and who would be sat round that table? Health, social services and the people involved with the problems. There seems to be a real lack of initiative to come forward and the reason is very simple: when you get those people round a table to sort out a problem, it costs money. They will do anything to avoid getting to the point where they have to sit round a table and commit money. I understand why—it is not easy, but we have to overcome that relationship between health and social services if this is going to work; otherwise, we will have these glass Chinese walls, where it is the responsibility of one and the other one does not want to know.
Finally—I have gone over my four minutes—not all households are one-person households. Often there are two people—two elderly people; two parents, perhaps—who need the help.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Browning. It is always well worth listening to and taking note of her wise words.
This has been a fascinating and very well-informed debate, as we expect from your Lordships’ House. My noble friend introduced the report very forcefully and the Economic Affairs Committee should be roundly congratulated, not only on the detail in this report but on succinctly describing this issue as a national scandal. It is indeed. I am disappointed to hear of the delay of even a response to this report.
One disadvantage of being the last Back-Bencher to take part in a debate is that most things that I wanted to say have been said at least once. However, if there is one thing that cannot be repeated enough, it is to pay tribute to the many care workers, their employers and, indeed, those unpaid carers so eloquently praised by my noble friend Lady Fookes.
Although this debate is about how to fund social care, I wish to add something that I have noticed over the years when visiting care homes, which is the increased isolation felt by those who have poor knowledge of English and who might even find the food offered to them rather alien.
I add my voice to all those who have asked the Government to stop prevaricating and sort this out.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the Adult Social Care APPG. This has been an excellent debate on an excellent report, and almost without exception everyone has said that they support virtually all its recommendations. Those who have had issues have had one or two specific points only. But here we are—again—in another year with yet another debate where we discuss the scandal that is the funding of social care in this country.
In fact, this problem is more than just four or five years old. Twenty-five years ago, when I was a member of Cambridgeshire County Council, there was cross-party agreement that the social care funding system was in deep trouble and needed urgent reforms. Sometimes it really does feel like Groundhog Day. However, this report provides a megaphone to government by expertly identifying the urgent issues facing our social care system. It has made a series of excellent recommendations that have received broad consensus across the parties, and even across the sector.
This debate has also demonstrated that the problems are well known and, in policy terms, much has been done to start to address them. Along with other parties, so ably listed by a number of Peers including my noble friends Lord Razzall and Lord Campbell, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, we note that the Conservatives had reforms to social care as key manifesto promises in 2017 and 2019, yet here we are still waiting for even the first and most basic of initial announcements. Why are the repeated calls of this House, the Commons, the sector, residents and their families still falling on deaf ears? I urge the Minister and this Government not to start from scratch again with further prolonged consultation or a Green Paper. What we need now, as my noble friend Lady Tyler said, is action and a White Paper which truly addresses the unfair way in which social care is funded and provided.
The comparison has already been made this afternoon between dementia care and cancer care; it is always worth repeating to demonstrate the total unfairness. Worse than that, the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, just mentioned the case conferences where the NHS and social services are at loggerheads about deciding whether something is personal care. I have witnessed this myself when sitting in on a meeting where a discussion about incontinence was whether it was actually due to the dementia, in which case it would be personal care, or due to osteoporosis and a crushed vertebra, in which case it would be nursing care. This is ridiculous. One of the problems with the current system is that it pits one part of it against the other, and that should end.
The founding principle of our much loved NHS is to provide care that is free at the point of use and ensure that no one is bankrupted or pays catastrophic costs for their care. This principle must also apply to long-term care. We need to revisit and update the Dilnot commission to make sure that the amount people are expected to pay out of pocket is capped with, as the report says, the cost shared between the public purse and the social care user.
The pandemic has rightly drawn attention to the plight faced by our social care workers, and I very much agree with Sir Andrew Dilnot’s evidence to the committee. He said:
“It is easy to neglect how wonderful the people providing this care are and, by and large, they are fabulous people working in circumstances that many people would not find desirable.”
During the first lockdown, we saw evidence of care workers leaving their families and going to stay in care homes for its duration to look after and protect their residents. That is the sort of commitment we see from the workers, so it is wrong that social care staff are not regarded in the same light as NHS healthcare staff. There needs to be a complete attitude change, in government and more widely, about the workforce: their supply issues, their pay levels and parity of investment, treatment and esteem between the sector and the NHS. I believe there should also be a royal college for social care to confirm their status and develop best practice, and to raise the esteem of social care workers.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, outlined, unpaid carers face a really difficult task and this past year, particularly, has been a major problem with the pandemic. These carers have to navigate ever-changing, complicated government guidance to care for those they love, while facing increased anxiety as there is no one to take over if they fall ill or have to self-isolate. Unpaid carers must be part of the conversation on social care reform. Currently, there are just under 1 million full-time carers, relying on the carer’s allowance of just £67.25 a week. It is the lowest benefit of its kind. What does that say about how we value this sacrifice and commitment as a community? Raising the carer’s allowance would certainly be a start. However, it is not sustainable for mostly female, unpaid carers to continue to hold up the care sector with their free labour. We need to take the report’s recommendation and restore access to local authority funding to ease the pressure on friends and family carers.
I add here a brief word about young and child carers. Their education often suffers and although there are things in legislation about it, they are not universally applied. These young people need that support because they face a real difficulty in trying to manage caring for their relative as well as their education. I applaud local government, where some councils have extremely good young carers’ groups, whose work should be spread across the country as good practice.
As well as funding and support, we need to start being innovative in our approach to social care. This means thinking about how we could enrich lives and our communities and not regard those who need care as perhaps a burden. Schemes such as the Humanitas home in Holland, where university students are offered free accommodation in exchange for volunteering with residents, demonstrate how we can look across sectors to find inventive solutions to societal issues. Good adult social care can transform lives and, in turn, prevent mental and physical ill health, providing savings for the National Health Service in the long term and, most importantly, improving the quality of life for all the residents, whatever their age. Those Dutch university students said that it transformed their views about what they wanted to do in their future lives.
Working-age adult social care patients were mentioned by my noble friends Lady Jolly and Lady Tyler, and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. They all made the vital point on adult social care being about so much more than the elderly. That those with long-term disabilities and learning disabilities are treated as if they are in the same category as those who have perhaps led a full life must be remedied sooner rather than later. A fair system would recognise that they are different to those who have had the advantage of 40 years’ working.
Finally, many noble Lords have demonstrated that the impact of the pandemic has laid bare the perilous financial position of our care sector. Let me be clear: I am not referring just to the emergency short-term funding via local authorities, which has been vital. The pandemic has exposed the imbalanced relationship between the NHS and the care sector, demonstrating the need for the long-term financial commitment required to fulfil the recommendations of this report. I am referring to the paucity of local authority funding—not the fault of local authorities, because their own funds have been cut so badly, as so well outlined by my noble friend Lord Shipley—for those who cannot fund their own care. This results in even higher barriers to access local funding, as the boundary below which you cannot get funding is raised higher and higher.
As for the care providers, they have faced extraordinary increases in rising insurance premiums and exclusions, and insufficient clinical indemnity. I note that the Government have come in to help on indemnity, but only until the end of March. Please will the Minister look at this and address it? Care homes are already overwhelmed and it is not as if they are going to solve this in the next six to eight weeks. Although the Government have introduced that cover, it does not provide the broader indemnity required after the pandemic to put homes on a parity with the NHS in future. Worse, the future viability of some care homes is at risk, with staff shortages causing reductions to capacity, not least as a result of workers leaving the country following our Brexit. Beds are not being filled because people are reluctant to go into homes after the high death rate in the first lockdown. The big warning, though, is that any future pandemic preparedness must take into account the impact on the social care sector, with clear guidance on how to protect residents and those requiring care.
What do we think has been the impact of the two years of inaction since the committee’s report was published? How many individuals have not had access to the care they need, or been bankrupted to pay for care? How many individuals have reached a crisis point and put pressure on our NHS in its time of crisis, as they have not had access to appropriate community care? This excellent report makes it clear that the time for action is now. Will the Minister please make sure that happens?
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I too congratulate the committee on its excellent report. We have waited a long time for this debate and, of course, for the Prime Minister’s ready plan for social care that he said he had when he took up office 18 months ago, just after the report was published. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for his strong advocacy and efforts to keep the report alive and kicking, his continued pressure on Ministers on the need for urgent and long-term action, and his pushing for this debate.
Noble Lords have stressed the devastating impact of Covid-19 on social care. As October’s annual CQC State of Care report said:
“Social care’s longstanding need for reform, investment and workforce planning has been thrown into stark relief by the pandemic”,
thrusting a long-recognised crisis into public consciousness and, with it, awareness of the quality of care, unmet needs, the pay and conditions of social care staff and the lack of co-ordination between NHS and care providers. Age UK has described the “battering” of the social care system from Covid 19, which it was in no position to receive. It stresses that social care staff and the services they deliver are being stretched appallingly thin, with older and disabled people and their families left to pay the price.
Noble Lords have today brought their expertise and experience to the range of issues covered by the report in respect of both Covid-19’s impact and what needs to be done to address the current crisis and build a long-term, sustainable social care system. I want mostly to reinforce some of the issues raised about domiciliary and residential care. Let me first stress our strong support for the report. Eighteen months on from its publication, it remains a solid basis and stepping-stone for moving forward and breaking the cycle of chronic underfunding of social care, of unmet need and of the unfairness and disparity in entitlement to care in the NHS and the adult social care system.
The fundamental principles espoused by the committee have widespread support among the social care stakeholders and community: funding social care largely from general taxation; the top priority of restoring local authority funding for social care to 2010 pre-austerity levels; ending councils’ dependence on locally-raised financing for social care; a new, £7 billion-a-year system for providing free personal care to help people with basic daily needs; and major investment in a new deal for the social care workforce and joined-up workforce planning with the NHS.
Most of all, the report plays a vital role in setting out the scale of the funding required, based on Health Foundation, King’s Fund and ADASS research, just to begin to address current and unmet need and future demand. We have heard the figures repeated this afternoon: £1.5 billion extra this year to maintain the levels of service provision of five years ago and £2.4 billion extra to local authorities just to stop the funding gap from widening even further. The Minister well knows this, so I hope that his response will not just restate the Government’s cash injections into the social care system. Extra cash is always welcome but, to emphasise, periodic cash injections, announced mostly during a crisis and too late, buy only a few months of shoring up already fragile services.
Proper funding and support for domiciliary care must be an essential part of a sustainable system. It is social care’s front line, and its scale and reach are often not widely recognised. If residential care during the pandemic played a grim catch-up to NHS services, then domiciliary care was often an afterthought even to care homes. Its dedicated, low-paid care workers, nearly 700,000 of them in England, visit people’s homes daily, moving from client to client and providing a vital link with the outside world on which they depend, particularly if clients are without family or carer support and especially during the pandemic when most have been unable to leave their homes, or their daycare or support clubs, while community services have been shut down. As a carer myself, regularly in touch with many local carers, I fully support the committee’s recognition of the huge further burden that underfunding of services has placed on unpaid carers.
As with residential care, during the pandemic there have been widespread reports of desperate agency care managers ringing around to try to get the PPE they need. Government recognition and funding are needed to cover the extra costs involved in this, as well as the staff shortages and absences arising from a combination of positive Covid cases following PCR testing, self-isolation following contract tracing, shielding and childcare responsibilities. What additional funding has been provided specifically for domiciliary care, PPE, testing and additional staffing costs in 2020? ADASS estimates that an additional £480 million funding is needed in England now to increase the provision of care at home for older and disabled people so they can live independently, with good care, and be kept out of hospital.
On the key issue of free personal care noble Lords, including my noble and good friend Lord Lipsey, will be well aware that we have long advocated it as a basic entitlement for people with substantial and critical levels of need for help with washing, toileting and other daily living needs that will enable them to live safe, independent lives in the community. We applaud the committee’s recommendation on this vital issue. As it points out, free personal care is fair and better aligned with NHS entitlement than the current system, and it would help keep people more mobile and active in the community rather than needing residential or hospital care.
In England, more than 350,000 older people are currently estimated to use home care services, 257,000 of whom have their care paid for by their local council. The United Kingdom Homecare Association estimates that 249 million hours of home care are delivered each year. It is a service which a further 1.6 million older people should receive but do not, because they do not meet current eligibility criteria or there is just not the funding for it. Does the Minister acknowledge that the domiciliary care service needs urgently to be substantially expanded to meet current and future demand?
We know that there has been deep concern about the Care Act easements arising from the Coronavirus Act during the pandemic. Seven councils used this provision in the first wave, mainly to relieve them of duties to carry out care and financial assessments and care planning reviews and visits. The CQC website has not been updated since last July, so can the Minster tell us whether any further councils have used the easement during the second wave? Will the Government provide a full breakdown of the services or activities affected by them? Age UK’s November survey showed that one in seven of those receiving care before the pandemic have since seen a reduction in their care; that is, 210,000 people either receiving less care or no longer receiving any.
On residential care, the Minister is on record as saying that he sees nothing wrong with the current business model, yet he will know that one of the “big four” independent care home providers, Four Seasons, is riddled with some £50 million worth of debt and that, in any event, the big four—the others being HC-One, BUPA and Barchester—cover only around 15% of the overall market. The bulk of England’s 15,600 residential homes are small, privately owned or voluntary sector-run. Although LaingBuisson reports that no home closures were triggered by Covid-19 through the first lockdown, occupancy fell by 8%. Care England has referred to occupancy rates as “historically low”. As the property agency Knight Frank predicts, small, older care homes will be most affected, as they will find it harder to cope with this. Moreover, of more than 6,500 care homes which have 40 beds or fewer, half do not have facilities to support care during a pandemic. Future care home design will need to provide wider corridors to enable social distancing, larger rooms with full en suite and wet-room facilities as standard to promote residents’ safety and isolation, adapted fixtures and fittings to limit touch points, and safer, more separate visitor areas with enhanced communication systems.
The report strongly underlines the unsustainability of the current system of residential care, particularly fears that the number of publicly-funded care places will decline if care homes are driven to market just to self-funders because councils are unable to meet the real costs of providing care. Does the Minister agree that any future model for residential care will be sustainable only if councils are adequately funded to meet the full costs of care?
The actions proposed in this report enjoy widespread support, as today’s debate and the submissions from key stakeholders have clearly demonstrated. As a starting point, it sets out fully-costed proposals that would begin to restore social care funding to pre-austerity levels, ensure that local government was fully funded for providing care, and address the truly urgent need for people to get free personal care support to meet essential daily living needs. Noble Lords have commended the recognition that a new deal is desperately needed for health and social care staff. That is surely no longer in doubt for anyone who has seen their selfless, remarkable and dedicated response to the pandemic.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, I join those who have congratulated my noble friend Lord Forsyth on securing this debate on this most important subject. The Economic Affairs Committee has done a huge service with this remarkable report. I reassure him and the committee that reform of adult social care is one of the most important priorities for this Government. It was a manifesto commitment and remains a major priority for us.
One of the silver linings of this awful pandemic has been the widespread appreciation for our carers, paid and unpaid, and I start by acknowledging the many fine words from noble Lords about the hard work of carers. I pay tribute to them and the incredible work they do every day. We owe it to them to get these reforms right.
The House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee, in its excellent and often-praised report, and many noble Lords today have made important points on social care which I want to address systematically. The committee’s report sets out the need for reform of adult social care, and on that the Government completely agree. I reassure noble Lords that, as detailed at the spending review, the Government are committed to sustainable improvement of the adult social care system and will bring forward proposals this year.
My noble friend Lord Lansley spoke with candour about the challenge facing Ministers, and I completely agree with him. Putting social care on a sustainable footing, where everyone is treated with dignity and respect, is one of the biggest challenges that our society faces. This is a complex area, a range of options are being considered, and we very much look forward to working with other parties on building a consensus around these reforms.
As many noble Lords noted, a stable social care provider market and a qualified, committed and well-paid workforce will be central to our ambitions to raise the quality of and access to social care. We want to empower recipients of care by supporting people to live independently in their own homes and communities for as long as possible. A number of noble Lords noted the Cinderella status of the sector. We want to improve the information provided to the public on the social care system, enabling them to plan for their care and make better choices when the time is right for them, and to raise the status of the sector in the public consciousness.
As regards our direction, we have made absolutely clear our commitment that nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it. Our ambitions will necessarily take place on a longer timescale because of the pandemic, but, as the PM reaffirmed at the Liaison Committee in the House of Commons, we will bring forward proposals this year.
On social care funding, we recognise that the Covid-19 pandemic has imposed significant pressures on the social care sector, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Forsyth that the pandemic is not an excuse for inaction. In fact, it is a reason for supporting the social care sector, and that is exactly what we have done. We have now made £4.6 billion available to local authorities so that they can address the pressures on local services, including social care, that have been caused by the pandemic.
I remind noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, of some of the measures we have undertaken during this period. Through the infection control fund, set up in May, we have provided over 1.1 billion of ring-fenced funding for the care sector. This has funded important measures for infection prevention and control, such as financial security for staff who are isolating, as well as PPE. On 23 December, we announced an extra 149 million to fund costs associated with increased testing in care homes, to help ensure the safety of staff and residents. Today’s announcement of the test and trace results shows the impact of that money. On 16 January, we announced another £120 million of funding to help local authorities to boost staffing levels in the care sector, which could include setting up their own staff bank to assist care homes when their staff need to isolate.
As well as this specific funding for Covid-19, we have also provided councils with access to an additional £1.5 billion for adult and children’s social care in 2020-21, on top of maintaining £2.5 billion of existing social care grants. As announced in the recent spending review, we are providing councils with access to over £1 billion of additional funding for social care in 2021-22. This includes £300 million of new grant funding for social care, on top of the £1 billion social care grant announced last year, which is being maintained in line with our manifesto commitment.
The Government are also enabling local authorities to access up to £790 million of new funding for adult social care through a 3% adult social care precept or top-up to council tax bills. The Government recognise, as is cited in the Economic Affairs Committee report, that the amount that each local authority can raise from this precept is dependent on a number of factors: for example, council tax bill levels. We are looking to address this through using some of the social care grant funding for equalisation. We also expect to provide councils with estimated funding of around £3 billion to help manage the impact of Covid-19 across their services, including in adult social care, and to compensate for income losses. This is a substantial track record of investment during a time of national emergency, and a significant response to the Covid pandemic.
I will say a word about market fragility. The report raises concerns about the strength of the social care provider market. As many noble Lords have noted, this market is varied and includes public, private and voluntary organisations. This is both a strength and a weakness. As noble Lords have noted, not all providers last for ever, but I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and my noble friend Lady Browning that entering and exiting is a normal part of a functioning market, and local authorities should have appropriate plans in place to minimise any disruption of services.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that local authorities are best placed to understand and plan for the care needs of their populations, and to develop and build local market capacity. That is why, under the Care Act 2014, local authorities are required to shape their local markets.
To push back gently against the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on capacity, the number of overall care home beds has remained broadly constant over the last 10 years, from around 460,000 beds in 2010 to around 458,000 beds this month. At the same time, the number of care home agencies in England has increased. There are over 4,000 more care home agencies now than there were in 2010. This reflects the growing trend, noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, towards caring for people in their own homes wherever possible. This is largely to be welcomed.
A number of noble Lords commented on the quality of care. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for her testimony on her time at the Care Quality Commission, which is the independent regulator of all health and social care services in England. It notes that 84.6% of all social care organisations are currently rated as good or outstanding. As my noble friend Lord Lancaster put so well, this is testament to the hard work of so many people in adult social care, who speak of positive experiences in adult social care. We should not forget this.
I also want to cover unmet demand. We have enshrined in law, through the Care Act, the responsibility of local authorities to meet eligible needs. This eliminated the postcode lottery for eligibility across England. Under the Care Act, everybody who appears to have needs is entitled to an assessment. If, following the assessment, they are found to have eligible needs, the local authority has a duty to meet those needs, subject to a financial assessment.
That brings me to the difference highlighted in the committee report and raised by my noble friend Lord Forsyth between, say, cancer care, which is funded by the NHS, and other conditions that people may be living with, such as dementia, and those who have to pay for that care. The reason for this is the type of care required. There are limited treatment options for people living with dementia, so care is predominantly social care and support, rather than the medical treatment afforded by the NHS for those who have cancer. Social care, as we know, is subject to means testing. As I mentioned earlier, the Government are committed to social care reform, so that no one has to face excessive social care costs in their lifetime, whatever their underlying need. In answer to noble Lords, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, who asked about a timetable, we will bring forward proposals later this year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle, asked about personalisation and choice. The report raised concerns about disabled people not having choice and control over basic decisions in their lives, such as when they get up in the morning and whether they can leave the house, due to lack of care and support.
My noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach was quite right when he called for dignity and respect in social care. On that, the Care Act introduced new functions for councils to focus on promoting well-being and prevention, including offering personal budgets, which are designed to give people control and choice over how their care is planned and delivered. It is based on what matters to the individual and their needs. It enables a new relationship between people, the care system, and health and care professionals, and is a step towards offering people the chance to have a say about their own care. The evidence suggests that, by doing so, people are more satisfied with their care, have better outcomes and can explore more innovative approaches to meet their needs.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, and other noble Lords that our NHS and social care system is facing increased pressure and that it needs to be fundamentally transformed and adapted to meet this demand. Our mission is to deliver integrated health and care services by placing people at the centre of the health and care system, working with them holistically to deliver the outcomes that matter to them most.
I want to say a word about the workforce, but, before I do, let me recognise the very large number of tributes paid to it by noble Lords. I completely acknowledge the comments on the status, training and workload of those working on the front line of social care. As the report recognises, the 1.5 million people who make up the paid social care workforce provide an invaluable service to the nation. We are indebted to their selfless dedication, and we have a duty to give them the support they need.
I have already mentioned the infection control fund to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and I reassure him that the £1 billion of funding to which we have given councils access in 2021-22 is designed to ensure that key pressures in the system are met, including the national living wage and national minimum wage. I reassure my noble friend Lady Fookes that the increase in the national living wage means that many of the lowest-paid workers will benefit from at least a 2.2% pay rise next year. The vast majority of care workers are employed by private sector providers, which ultimately set their pay. They must abide by national wage legislation, but they are independent of central government. Local authorities work with care providers to determine a fair rate of pay based on local market conditions.
On recruitment and vacancy rates, which were raised by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, we completely recognise that adult social care employers can struggle to recruit and retain the right number of staff. We are pleased that the vacancy rate reduced to around 7% for the period March to November 2020 from 8.4% in February 2020. We want this to reduce further and are working alongside stakeholders in adult social care to support a growing workforce with the values and skills to deliver high-quality, compassionate care.
It is vital that the spotlight we have seen placed on the social care workforce during Covid-19 is transformed into a long-lasting legacy of recognition for the workforce, as was noted by a number of noble Lords. We will celebrate their work and give them the acknowledgement and appreciation they deserve. To answer my noble friend Lady Fookes and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, we have responded to calls to provide the social care workforce with a shared identity to unite the sector. CARE badges are currently available free of charge, to be worn as a symbol of pride across the social care sector, and 1.1 million of them have been provided.
To noble Lords who asked about unpaid carers, I say that, like the report, the Government recognise the vital role unpaid carers play, especially given the difficulties the coronavirus pandemic has placed on those caring for family members, relatives and loved ones. We were all moved by the testimony of the noble Baronesses, Lady Kingsmill and Lady Wheeler. I want to pause for a moment to reflect the country’s gratitude to the people who have stepped up to help one another in their communities during the pandemic, alongside those who care day in and day out for their older or disabled loved ones. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, said, this pandemic has highlighted the invaluable contribution of unpaid carers just as much as that of NHS and social care workers.
I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, that we have supported unpaid carers throughout the pandemic by funding the work of a number of charities that support carers, by publishing guidance tailored to carers, and by working with the social care sector to strike a balance between maintaining day care and respite services that we know are critical to many families and controlling infection risks.
In 2018, we set out a two-year programme of cross-government action on unpaid carers in our carers action plan. We will continue to work with carer organisations to support unpaid carers’ access to the support they need to maintain their own health and well-being while continuing to support their loved ones.
This is a comprehensive report. This debate has raised some really good points, and I acknowledge the frustration felt by many that there has not been more progress on this agenda. However, as my colleague, the Minister of State for Care, wrote in her response to the committee chair, this is an important priority, and we are working hard to make progress on it. We are considering the report’s recommendations carefully, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, rightly acknowledged, we remain committed to cross-party talks to build a consensus. We remain committed to this vital work and will bring forward proposals later this year.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con) [V]
My Lords, this has been a brilliant debate and I thank everyone for taking part. I am slightly embarrassed by the tributes paid to me—I just chair the committee. It is a fantastic committee; we reached a consensus and we did so by listening to people and acting on the evidence before us. One thing I can guarantee is that this brilliant debate in the House of Lords will not even be acknowledged by our critics, who present us in a quite different light.
A number of key points have been made, drawn from the report, about the importance of raising the standing, status and training of care workers. The noble Baronesses, Lady Kingsmill and Lady Finlay, my noble friends Lady Fookes, Lord Lancaster, Lord Taylor, Lady Eaton and Lord Randall, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle all made these points. I must say to my noble friend the Minister that the answer is not to issue people with a badge, but to take direct action in order that people are properly rewarded in a proper career structure with proper training.
Points were made about the litany of reports and broken promises and the requirement for action this day by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley—who has been on to this, as she said, for years and has led the way, describing herself as something of a lone voice. She must be reinforced by the degree of consensus that she has heard today. My noble friend Lady Browning and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, pointed to that.
I ask my noble friend the Minister: what did the Prime Minister mean when he said
“we will fix the crisis in social care once and for all with a clear plan we have prepared to give every older person the dignity and security they deserve”?
That was in 2019. This is 2021. Saying, “We will bring forward proposals this year”, when we are still in January is not really reassuring, given the urgency and the strength of feeling shown in this debate. I am also grateful that my noble friend Lady Pidding and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollins and Lady Brinton, all pointed out that this is not just about the elderly; it is about young people of working age, on whom half the budget is spent.
One point that has come out very strongly is that it will be necessary to spend this money. We all know that the reason why this has been delayed and we have had endless Green Papers and so on is that the Treasury simply does not want to spend the money—a point that my noble friend Lord Lansley underscored and which was also raised by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Truscott and Lord Campbell. The Minister surely can see that the overwhelming message from this Committee is: “No more delays”.
Something that I think is very important and which came out in our report is that many people are completely unaware of the services that will be available to them until the point that they themselves need care or a relative needs care—it comes as a profound shock. People across the country do not realise how limited the services are, which is one reason why politicians of all parties have been able to get away with not addressing this problem—a problem that hits people and causes enormous stress at the time that they are probably most vulnerable.
There has been a universal cry that local authorities are being asked to do the impossible and do not have the resources. I say to the Minister that sticking plasters brought in for particular situations do not deal with the systemic problem of funding and the pressure that local authorities are under. These points were made by the noble Lords, Lord Razzall and Lord Shipley.
I am grateful to my noble friend but he is pretty lucky that we are having to hold this debate virtually and are not able to intervene to challenge some of the points in his departmental speech. If he seeks consensus then he should look around him: there is consensus in this Committee; I have never known a debate where this was the case with almost every single speech. There were arguments about the odd detail here and there, but only one speech did not praise the report, which came from my noble friend Lord Sarfraz, who said that he was impressed with the proposals coming from the Government—I do not know whether he has inside information or has had a look at what lies ahead. The message from this debate is absolutely clear: no more delays, no more Green Papers, no more proposals. Let us have a White Paper and legislation, and let us move forward and say thank you to those people whom the Minister rightly praised but who need more than the recognition of a badge. They need to be given a proper career, and we need to attract people to that career, which offers prospects for many of our young people who face unemployment as a result of the impact of Covid-19.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
That completes the business before the Grand Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving.
House of Lords
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 10 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, while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them sensibly short and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
EU: Musicians
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord German
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the United Kingdom-European Union Trade and Cooperation Agreement on musicians and musical enterprises seeking to work and tour in the European Union.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise the importance of international touring for UK cultural and creative practitioners. Leaving the EU has always meant that there would be changes to how practitioners operate in the EU. The DCMS has engaged with the sector extensively throughout negotiations and since the announcement of the trade and co-operation agreement. The Secretary of State has agreed to create a DCMS-led working group to work closely with the sector’s representative organisations and other key government departments to assist businesses and individuals as far as possible to work confidently in the EU.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I set aside for the moment the ping-pong on who is to blame for what has happened, and remember the anxiety and anguish faced by many of the top musicians in the UK. The Minister told the House last week that
“Our door absolutely remains open”—[Official Report, 19/1/21, col. 1085.]
to dialogue with the EU on this matter. Open doors mean that people can go through them without hindrance. Has an open-door invitation been made to the European Union, and if not why not?
Baroness Barran (Con)
As the noble Lord knows, it takes two people to meet though an open door. I was also very clear in my answers last week that our priority was working with the sector to understand its needs and working bilaterally with individual countries. But we still believe that our original suggestion would have benefited all parties.
Baroness Bakewell (Lab) [V]
Clearly, this Brexit situation is unsatisfactory for all those involved. The Secretary of State for the arts, Oliver Dowden, calls the arts sector one of our greatest calling cards. It is indeed soft power with diplomatic significance. Musicians from both pop and classical sides of the profession tell me that cultural attachés in embassies across London are concerned about this situation. Setting aside the blame game, can the Government reopen negotiations and go through this open door, as it concerns an industry worth four times the fishing industry to this country?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government are also concerned to make sure that our critical and creative sector—and within that, musicians—continue to thrive, which is why we are working closely with the sector to achieve that.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD) [V]
My Lords, in addition to problems with work permits, carnets and CITES certificates, there is another. Prior to Brexit, when UK orchestras toured Europe, they often visited several venues in multiple countries. Their own or rented specialist vehicles would move instruments and equipment from venue to venue. Can the Minister confirm that under the new post-Brexit cabotage rules this will no longer be possible unless UK orchestras stop using UK vehicles and rely on EU ones? Is this another example of taking back control?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord is right that there are changes to the cabotage arrangements going forward. UK operators can perform some additional movements within another nation’s territory, but they are more limited than previously. Our colleagues in the Department for Transport are, we know, working hard to address these issues.
Baroness Rawlings (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as vice-president of the European Union Youth Orchestra. The outcome of Brexit was that the EUYO had to move to Bolzano and Grafenegg. As it tours constantly, can HMG make certain that the British players, who already have difficulties, can have multiple visas without too much trouble and expense? This is understandably more complicated with the Covid-19 pestilence.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend raises an important point. As she knows, during the transition period, UK players were guaranteed their membership of the EUYO, and have been reinvited during 2021. As I said, we continue to engage closely with representatives from all parts of the music sector to provide the support that musicians, including the EUYO’s members, need to navigate the requirements that result from the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, 76% of musicians in a recent survey by Encore Musicians said that Brexit restrictions would stop them performing again in Europe. In the light of this, and in the apparent absence of any movement through the open door, will the Minister say what specific help the Government might offer to musicians to help them cope with the new challenges that they face in order to tour in the EU, including administrative support with obtaining work permits, carnets and other requirements, and financial support to offset some of the extra costs involved?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord makes a serious point. In relation to the first part of his question, he will be aware that the arrangements are different in different countries. For example, the requirements to tour France are much more straightforward than some other countries. Obviously, musicians may choose to adjust to that. I cannot give him the detail of what will be proposed. What I can say is that the round table that the Secretary of State held with the industry on the 20th of this month was extremely constructive in tone in addressing all those points.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, going back to the answer given just a few moments ago to the noble Lord, Lord German, will the Minister confirm that the plan seems to be that since the Home Office will not provide reciprocal arrangements on the basis that the EU has proposed, we are talking about bilateral deals right across Europe, and that a working group has been formed which is meeting to draw up plans? Is that where we have got to?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I think where we have got to is that we have secured a deal with the European Union extremely recently. The agreement cannot be renegotiated. It needs now to be implemented. We aim to do that in collaboration with the sector to make sure that it can thrive in future.
Lord Strasburger (LD) [V]
My Lords, a year ago the Government told the Commons that free movement for musicians post 2020 was “essential”, but then left them out of the trade agreement. Will the Government now come clean with the touring musicians and crews they have betrayed and say to them, “We’re sorry. We screwed up the trade negotiation and came back with absolutely nothing for you, having promised you everything. We’ll go back to Brussels immediately and sort it out”?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I absolutely reject any suggestion that this Government have betrayed the sector. We continue to support it. We have championed it with a £1.57 billion culture recovery package and we continue to work in a very constructive tone with it.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
If this situation is not resolved, our world-leading jazz sector will start to lose its world-leading reputation. Will the Government guarantee to carry on meeting regularly with the Musicians’ Union until this problem is resolved?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government meet regularly with the Musicians’ Union and find it an extremely valuable stakeholder in this discussion.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, the UK has benefited from and supported greatly the European Union Youth Orchestra and the Chamber Orchestra of Europe. Will my noble friend look favourably on exchanges such as that developed bilaterally between the UK and Denmark, Praktik i udlandet, where business students on both sides can benefit from business placements? If we are going down the bilateral route, can we proceed as positively and as swiftly as possible?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I cannot comment on the specific that my noble friend cites as an example but, as I have said, the spirit of this is working with the sector to understand what it needs, and we will continue to do so.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, for the purposes of clarity, I ask: does this situation not mean that instead of our musicians bringing several billion pounds into the UK economy, we will be in a negative position? If Oliver Dowden manages to find funds to help us, it will be money going out of the UK coffers to support an industry that normally helps the UK economy by £5.8 billion?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Those export earnings are extremely important but, as the noble Lord understands very well, the ecosystem of the music sector is very broad. There will be larger groups that will be less impacted directly by some of these changes, but our creative and cultural sector is made up of a multiplicity of talented smaller groups of musicians who we absolutely see as critical and want to support.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
EU-UK Joint Political Declaration on Asylum and Returns
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the joint political declaration notes the importance of effectively managing migratory flows between the UK and the EU. The UK will continue to engage bilaterally and multilaterally with member states with which we have a mutual interest on returns or family reunions of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. This reaffirms the important commitments already made in Parliament. This work is ongoing.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that, yesterday at a Holocaust Memorial Day event, her Cabinet colleague Robert Jenrick made a very positive statement about refugees. May I ask her specifically about the discussions that are taking place about child refugees with EU countries? Have these discussions started? If not, when will they start and with which countries will they take place?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I know I will disappoint the noble Lord when I say that I will not be giving a running commentary on discussions but, yes, they have started and will be ongoing.
Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, these events have occurred against a background of reports of disturbing reforms in the British asylum system, including having asylum seekers in places where it is impossible for them to gain access to complete their asylum forms and to get medical attention. What will the world think of Britain’s reputation when we are not being very helpful to future generations and those who have families here in the UK? Will the Minister follow through from her answer to my noble friend and say when we are really going to start being serious about assisting these families and individuals?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I completely reject the notion that our asylum accommodation is not fit for purpose. The barracks that we used last year and continue to use are of a standard that we would expect in terms of access to medical and legal assistance. The accommodation is fully equipped to deal with anybody’s needs in terms of medical attention and legal requirements.
The Lord Bishop of Durham [V]
Does the Minister accept that some countries in Europe, such as Greece, Italy and France, are particularly important in bilateral negotiations? Will she confirm that a priority list of whom to engage with has been done and is being worked to?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The right reverend Prelate is absolutely right to say that there are some countries where there will be more returns and relationships in terms of asylum seekers. I can confirm that those talks are ongoing; what I cannot do is give an ongoing commentary on them.
Baroness Helic (Con) [V]
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that, following the end of the transition period, the Government published an overview of family reunion routes under the Immigration Rules, as promised during the passage of the immigration Bill? I would be grateful for an update on when, and whether, they also published clear guidance on the savings provisions, under which the UK processes all Dublin regulations requests received before the end of December.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I can confirm to my noble friend that new guidance, providing an overview of family reunion routes under, and outside of, the Immigration Rules, has been published on GOV.UK. Those Immigration Rules are unaffected by the end of the transition period. We have also taken steps to ensure that Dublin family reunion cases which entered the system before the end of the transition period continue to be processed after 31 December 2020, and we have published guidance on the savings provisions.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD) [V]
My Lords, the agreement between the European Union and ourselves says that the UK’s intention is
“to engage in bilateral discussion”
with the member states most concerned. That is the promise. To what extent have such discussions started and with which states, and has any agreement been reached?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I can confirm that those discussions have started, but I cannot comment on the status of ongoing negotiations.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]
Does the Minister appreciate the growing evidence that some bogus asylum seekers are claiming to be the victims of trafficking and/or modern slavery in order to bolster their claims, whether they arrive from the EU or elsewhere? What measures does she propose to deal with this?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I am very glad that my noble friend has asked that question, because the Home Secretary has outlined very clearly that we want safe and legal routes. She mentions trafficking and traffickers. Of course, at the heart of some of the small-boats activity are some of the worst types of criminality, committed by those who really do not have any care for the human lives that might be lost.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB) [V]
My Lords, Dublin III has been one of the many serious casualties of Brexit, as the Minister well knows. Can she confirm that the joint declaration will soon lead to a new agreement in the best interests of the child—at least in France? She must be as impatient as any of us to reach that agreement. Can she reassure me that the joint Calais reception arrangements, which came in time, are now working efficiently?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I can categorically state that we are no longer part of Dublin, and we do not intend to open up that agreement again. As of not last year but the year before, we are not a member of the European Union. In the course of the immigration Bill, I outlined how routes would be open to people who needed our asylum and to unaccompanied children.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
The Government said during the immigration Bill proceedings that they would carry out a review of safe and legal asylum routes. They promised a Statement on the terms of the review within three months of the Act passing, which will be reached on 11 February. Can the Minister give an update on progress on the Statement on the terms of the review and say whether it will be forthcoming by no later than 11 February? Also, how long is it expected to take to complete the review?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
That is something that I checked on before I left the department this morning, so I can absolutely confirm that we will lay a Statement before Parliament providing those further details by 10, not 11, February 2021.
Baroness Sheehan (LD) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister update the House on current government policy towards asylum seekers whom the Government would have returned to their point of entry into the EU under the Dublin regulations prior to the trade and co-operation agreement coming into force?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
As I said to noble Lords who asked this previously, routes are available to people who wish to seek our asylum. Those routes have always existed. We were never going to be involved in Dublin beyond our exit from the European Union. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will, in due course, lay out those safe and legal routes. We will also continue to give people who need our protection refuge in this country.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have consistently argued for a more Christian approach to those seeking asylum after losing loved ones, homes and livelihoods as a result of proxy conflict between the great powers seeking to extend their influence in areas such as the Middle East, with bombs, rockets and drone strikes. Does the Minister agree that countries that behave in that way have a basic moral obligation to look to the well-being of those seeking refuge?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Countries that behave in the way that the noble Lord has outlined clearly do not have regard for the well-being or humanity of their people. I think he will be satisfied by the fact that we will take a whole-of-world approach to resettlement and that asylum will be based on people’s need for our protection, as opposed to where they have come from.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the third Oral Question.
House of Lords: Size
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Balfe
To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker what plans the Procedure and Privileges Committee has to consult the House on the further steps that could be taken to implement the recommendations of the Lord Speaker’s committee on the size of the House.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith) [V]
My Lords, at present the committee has no plans to consult the House on further steps to be taken to implement the recommendations of the Lord Speaker’s committee. I note that this committee is continuing its important work, and I am sure it would welcome the noble Lord’s thoughts as to how it takes that work forward.
Lord Balfe (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will first make it clear that this Question is not aimed at any of the new creations. In my view, we need to make the House of Lords fit for purpose, but we have not received the co-operation from the Government that we could have expected over the Burns committee. We are often told that we are a self-regulating House, so I ask the Senior Deputy Speaker whether he will seek to set up some further body to look at ways in which this self-regulating House can regulate itself to a situation more acceptable to the British people, so that it can do the valuable job that is far too often rubbished because of extraneous events.
Lord McFall of Alcluith [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his question. It is a follow-up to the Question that he asked me on 23 June last year, and I promised to take that issue to the Procedure Committee. Both that committee and the Burns committee are very exercised by this issue, but the matter rests with legislation and with the Government. I will refer his Question again to the Procedure Committee, but in the meantime it might be helpful for him to talk to the Burns committee itself.
Lord Truscott (Ind Lab) [V]
Surely a painless way to reduce the size of your Lordships’ House would be to abolish hereditary by-elections, as proposed in the admirable Bill from by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. Does the Senior Deputy Speaker see this as a possible way forward?
Lord McFall of Alcluith [V]
Under the Life Peerages Act, Her Majesty has the power to confer a peerage for life, and that peerage entitles the holder
“to receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords and sit and vote therein accordingly”.
The committee of the House does not have any say over that issue. So, in terms of the hereditary Peers’ by-elections, the Procedure Committee met earlier this week and we have deferred the by-elections for a further period. Information on that will be forthcoming soon for the entire House.
Lord Cormack (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Senior Deputy Speaker will know that the House has given its wholehearted approval to the Burns committee’s recommendations. Does he not believe that, following the creation of a large number of new Peers, all of whom either have been or will be welcomed to your Lordships’ House, it would be appropriate for the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee to be asked to consider further what non-legislative steps could be taken to address the size of the House?
Lord McFall of Alcluith [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that question. Again, this is a matter for the Government, and I know that the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip will be listening to this. I will certainly arrange for that to be noted and brought to the attention of the Procedure Committee—it is a very positive suggestion.
Baroness D’Souza (CB) [V]
My Lords, the chairman of the Procedure Committee did indeed undertake in June of last year to look at various issues around the size of the House. Has any discussion taken place within the committee? Given the distinguished role of the Procedure Committee to contribute to the smooth running of the Chamber, would it not be appropriate for the committee to undertake some actions in the near future to reduce the number of Peers, thereby contributing to the efficacy and reputation of the House?
Lord McFall of Alcluith [V]
I thank the noble Baroness for that question; again, there is something very positive in that. However, the problems that have arisen in the past lie elsewhere; they do not lie in the House itself. Whatever the Procedure Committee can do, it will do because, as mentioned earlier, the whole House endorsed the Burns report and the Lord Speaker’s initiative in setting it up.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I do not expect the Senior Deputy Speaker to comment on anything to do with party politics, but I wonder whether he could reflect on whether the Procedure Committee—and the Burns committee, for that matter—could think about the writ of summons to attend the House and whether, after a year of some Members not attending the House physically at all, it would be possible for the political parties to be brought together to think about the implications for those who might choose to stand down once the House returns fully in person.
Lord McFall of Alcluith [V]
I thank the noble Lord for that question and apologise for the delay in answering; I am having to unmute every time. On the issue of the writs of summons, the person who receives writs of summons
“to attend the House of Lords and sit and vote therein accordingly”.
So the House is restricted in what it can do to limit introductions without undermining that Act of Parliament. It is the Government and the party groups who are best able to ensure that we continue to reduce the size of the House, should they choose to accept the recommendations in the report from the Lord Speaker’s committee on the size of the House.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]
My Lords, between 2003 and 2009 there were a number of inquiries into executive prerogative powers by parliamentary committees and the Ministry of Justice, which led to an extension of parliamentary oversight. Given recent controversies over Prime Ministerial abuse of prerogative powers over Parliament, which includes some recent Lords appointments, would it be appropriate to encourage the Constitution Committee to launch a new inquiry into this?
Lord McFall of Alcluith [V]
I think that that is a matter for the Constitution Committee itself. I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and her staff will have been listening to that, and they can take it forward if they think it is perfectly acceptable and possible to do.
The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree with me that the efficacy and reputation of the House are determined more by its behaviour and conduct than by its size? Given how the House has operated recently—I am thinking of examples in the last few weeks—would the committee’s time not be better spent in trying to keep our standards to a higher level rather than at the level to which they seem to have sunk recently?
Lord McFall of Alcluith [V]
That is the noble Lord’s personal opinion. I think the House has conducted itself in an excellent manner in the past six months, not least with regard to remote engagement. By all standards, according to outside commentators, the House of Lords has been the House that has done most in that regard. I think the work of the House is important and its reputation has to be increased. Indeed, the recent review of committees which we undertook—on which I am moving Motions later today —is to ensure that we enhance the reputation of the House. As a House, we do what we can, and I think we are doing that.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I would like to take the noble Lord back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. He said that reconstituting the Burns committee was a matter for the Government, but it is also a House matter. Could the Senior Deputy Speaker, through the Procedure Committee reporting to the House, arrange an opportunity for noble Lords to debate the re-establishment of the Burns committee? This is very much a House matter.
Lord McFall of Alcluith [V]
My Lords, I understand that the Burns committee, the Lord Speaker’s committee, has agreed to meet again to consider the latest situation. As we know, the committee is an informal body, which I do not speak for. The noble Lord would be best placed to speak to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, directly—but I will bring this Question to the notice of the noble Lord, Lord Burns.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Small Business: EU Exports
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Quin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support small businesses affected by increased costs in exporting to the European Union.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, small businesses can access trade support from UK Export Finance and the Department for International Trade, including export insurance and free local export champions. Business of all sizes in the UK can also access support services, including those by our free business support helpline, our growth hubs in England, which are expanding, and the British Business Bank. We will continue to review this support to ensure that UK businesses can keep trading successfully with the EU.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
My Lords, many exporters are facing new and huge problems in exporting to the European Union, including increased costs, VAT charges and extra red tape. All of this has serious consequences for our economy, which is already hit by Covid. Did the Government realise that their deal with the EU was going to cause these problems? What are they going to do to ensure that our exporters can overcome them quickly?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Baroness highlights a very important point. The Government are not just providing advice, important though that is. Through the British Business Bank, the Government have helped improve and diversify the supply of finance to small businesses. Its start-up loans company provides loans of up to £25,000 and advice. HMRC provides grants for recruitment and training of specialist staff and the Government have a £20 million fund specifically to help SMEs adapt, including grants of up to £5,000. The short answer is that the Government recognise the issues small businesses are facing and are doing their best to alleviate some of them through various means.
Lord Triesman (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am interested in the Answer that the Minister has given to my noble friend Baroness Quin. This has plainly not been a frictionless experience for companies; the arrangements are more complex, there is masses more red tape and there are higher transition charges. Does the Minister share the advice given by some officials—that SMEs should set up inside the EU if they want to conduct business normally, even if the UK staff of those businesses would be dismissed and replaced by EU citizens in the EU? If she would be unwilling to give the same advice that her officials are giving, will she support a compensation scheme to make good on the promise that businesses will not suffer any detriment and thereby also help them save jobs in the United Kingdom?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I do not recognise the advice the noble Lord refers to. These are early days and we are still in the first month after the end of the transition period. Decisions on whether to offshore business operations will be commercial decisions for those companies, which we would not welcome. We are committed to ensuring that businesses have access to a range of support to help them navigate these complicated new trading arrangements with the EU through support services, including those provided by the Department for International Trade. We will continue to engage with businesses about the issues they face to refine our support further.
Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Minister says that the Government are not only offering affected businesses advice on dealing with red tape, they are also offering them loans. This is all very well but recognises the extra costs. Government officials seem to be making suggestions which involve more costs, such as moving operations to the EU or appointing customs specialists. What prospect can the Government offer them of discussions with the EU resulting in streamlining of the bureaucratic burdens and associated costs? That, of course, requires an atmosphere of good will, which is not helped by some of the disputes going on at the moment.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a number of very important points. The Government have provided the £20 million fund to help SMEs adapt and this includes grants, not just loans, of up to £5,000 to help them through this. In answer to the question on the Trade and Co-operation Agreement, it establishes a standard set of committees and contact points to oversee its operation and run the trade partnership, as well as providing for technical discussion across all other areas. A series of grace periods are agreed in the TCA, including on rules of origin, with evidence of third-party suppliers not required until 2022.
Baroness Finn (Con) [V]
Does my noble friend agree that we need to work with SMEs and other businesses to tackle the lower propensity of British businesses to export? We need to seize export opportunities to the EU and those countries outside the EU. Can she therefore update us on what initiatives exist to encourage exports to countries outside the EU?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for asking a positive question looking at export markets outside the EU. We are committed to enabling SMEs to benefit from these new markets. They have access to a full range of tailored support from the Department of International Trade, through the Exporting is GREAT digital hub, the “business as usual” scheme for exporters’ working capital and the provision of export credit insurance policies where many commercial providers have scaled back. Further, the general export facility announced in the other place on 7 December provides a government guarantee to the five main banks to provide working capital support for SMEs.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as the Minister said, these are early days. However, there are reports—some in the papers today—about small businesses that export to the EU having difficulties and incurring extra costs. This can impact on consumers, particularly if companies are using the uncertainty created by the end of the transition period to load these costs on to consumers. Does the Minister believe that the Government have the powers they need to stamp out such abuses?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
While I am not aware of the abuses the noble Lord refers to, I will make sure I am fully informed of them. It is vital that traders set up transparent contracts with their consumers, which clearly explain any costs applied, and our consumer rights regulations enable consumers to take legal action to enforce their rights and recover their money if they think that these fees are excessive. If the noble Lord can share specific examples of this activity, I will be able to consider it further and write to him with more details.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD) [V]
I am sure the noble Baroness will understand that you cannot export what you cannot manufacture. I chair a manufacturing business in renewable heat, and we have critical parts that need to come from Slovakia. The perfect storm of coronavirus, Brexit red tape and order issues, means that hauliers in Slovakia will simply not bring goods to the UK at present. Manufacturing lines will soon halt, even though product and parts were stocked up in anticipation of Brexit issues. What are the Government doing to try and unlock the position for SME companies that are manufacturing in the UK, cannot access parts and do not have leverage to get priority from their European suppliers, as big companies may do?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I understand the point the noble Lord makes. I know that we managed to secure a much better deal for UK hauliers. They can continue to operate through and within the EU throughout the end of the transition period. As we know, that is important to allow the flow of goods, food and medicine into the country and to ensure that we can export our goods in a cost-efficient way to the EU and beyond. On his specific question about goods coming into the UK, I had better take that back to the department and write to him with further details of what we might be able to do to help.
Lord Bowness (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, while it may be less than one month since the transition period ended, for small businesses the situation is urgent and cannot be allowed to continue for many months. Does the Minister agree that the processes and paperwork from 1 January have turned out to be far more onerous than businesses were led to believe, and much more than the publicity in newspapers, online and on television suggested? That publicity told people to prepare for 1 January when they did not know for what they were actually preparing. I consider the matter urgent and some help is urgently required.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. The Government’s campaign to inform businesses and citizens of the need to change started in July. We published the first draft of the border operating model in July 2020. The campaign encourages businesses to visit GOV.UK/transition and to use the checker tool to tailor the guidance for their individual circumstances. Customs declarations would still have been necessary even if we had had no deal. While I am very sympathetic about the additional administration burden for small businesses, we are doing all we can to help them catch up with what is required.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allocated for this Question has ended, and indeed Question Time itself has come to an end.
House of Lords Commission
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Senior Deputy Speaker
House of Lords Commission
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Lord German, Lord Hill of Oareford, Lord Touhig and Lord Vaux of Harrowden be appointed members of the Select Committee, in place of Baroness Doocey, Lord Wakeham, Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall and Lord Laming.
Communications and Digital Committee
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Baroness Featherstone, Lord Giddens, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara be appointed members of the Select Committee, in place of Lord Storey, Baroness Quin, Lord Allen of Kensington and Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall.
Constitution Committee
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Baroness Doocey, Lord Hope of Craighead and Baroness Suttie be appointed members of the Select Committee, in place of Lord Beith and Lord Pannick.
Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Lord Hendy and Lord Janvrin be appointed members of the Select Committee, in place of Lord Haskel and Lord Thurlow.
Economic Affairs Committee
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Lord Bridges of Headley, Lord Haskel, Lord King of Lothbury and Baroness Kramer be appointed members of the Select Committee, in place of Lord Tugendhat, Lord Cunningham of Felling, Lord Burns and Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted.
Finance Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker to move that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Lord Campbell- Savours, Lord Davies of Brixton, Lord Lee of Trafford, Lord Levene of Portsoken and Lord Vaux of Harrowden be appointed members of the Select Committee, in place of Lord Cunningham of Felling, Baroness Goudie, Baroness Doocey, Lord Cromwell and Lord Kerslake; and that Lord Vaux of Harrowden be appointed chair of the Select Committee.
Joint Committee on Human Rights
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Lord Henley be appointed a member of the Select Committee, in place of Lord Trimble.
International Relations and Defence Committee
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Lord Anderson of Swansea, Lord Boateng, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, Lord Stirrup, Baroness Sugg and Lord Teverson be appointed members of the Select Committee, in place of Lord Reid of Cardowan, Lord Grocott, Lord Purvis of Tweed, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, Baroness Helic and Baroness Smith of Newnham.
Liaison Committee
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Baroness Campbell of Surbiton be appointed a member of the Select Committee, in place of Lord Low of Dalston.
National Plan for Sport and Recreation Committee
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Earl of Devon be appointed a member of the Select Committee, in place of Lord Krebs.
Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Lord Laming, Lord Reid of Cardowan and Lord Strasburger be appointed members of the Select Committee, in place of Lord Powell of Bayswater, Lord Harris of Haringey and Lord Campbell of Pittenweem.
Procedure and Privileges Committee
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall be appointed members of the Select Committee, in place of Lord Morris of Aberavon and Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe.
Science and Technology Committee
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Viscount Hanworth, Lord Krebs, Lord Mitchell, Lord Sarfraz, Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe and Lord Winston be appointed members of the Select Committee, in place of Lord Browne of Ladyton, Lord Mair, Baroness Hilton of Eggardon, Lord Borwick, Baroness Young of Old Scone and Lord Hollick.
Selection Committee
That Baroness Coussins and Lord Smith of Hindhead be appointed members of the Select Committee, in place of Lord Craig of Radley and Viscount Ullswater.
Services Committee
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Lord Clark of Windermere and Baroness Deech be appointed members of the Select Committee, in place of Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Laming; and that Lord Touhig be appointed chair of the Select Committee.
Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, Baroness D’Souza and Lord Smith of Hindhead be appointed members of the Select Committee, in place of Lord Stirrup and Lord Colgrain.
International Agreements Committee
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider matters relating to the negotiation, conclusion and implementation of international agreements, and to report on treaties laid before Parliament in accordance with Part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:
Foster of Bath, L, Gold, L, Goldsmith, L (Chair), Kerr of Kinlochard, L, Lansley, L, Liddell of Coatdyke, B, Morris of Aberavon, L, Oates, L, Risby, L, Robathan, L, Sandwich, E, Watts, L.
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the Committee have power to meet outside Westminster;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;
That the evidence taken by the International Agreements Sub-Committee of the European Union Committee be referred to the Committee;
That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.
Youth Unemployment Committee
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider youth unemployment, education and skills, and to make recommendations; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:
Baker of Dorking, L, Clark of Kilwinning, B, Clarke of Nottingham, L, Davies of Oldham, L, Derby, Bp, Empey, L, Hall of Birkenhead, L, Layard, L, McIntosh of Hudnall, B, Newlove, B, Shipley, L (Chair), Storey, L, Woolley of Woodford, L.
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the Committee have power to meet outside Westminster;
That the Committee do report by 30 November 2021;
That the report of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House.
That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith) [V]
My Lords, as many noble Lords will be aware, the House operates a rotation rule in respect of most Select Committees, which ensures a turnover of membership and broadens the opportunities for committee participation. In October 2020, the House agreed the fourth report of the Procedure and Privileges Committee, which recommended that the House should in future operate a rotation rule, based on calendar years rather than parliamentary Sessions, and that the rotations should occur in January each year.
This change was intended to provide greater certainty around the timing of rotations for committee members, chairs and staff. Today’s Motions therefore represent the first occurrence of what will be an annual January rotation. The overwhelming majority of membership changes on the Order Paper are the result of Members having served the full term allotted to them by the rotation rule. Most of these Members were appointed to their committees in 2016, and have therefore given good service over a number of years, for which we thank them.
The final two Motions will result in the appointment of a stand-alone international agreements committee, replacing the current sub-committee of the EU Committee, and the appointment of a time-limited special inquiry into youth unemployment. These give effect to recommendations contained in the fifth and sixth report of the Liaison Committee, which were approved by the House earlier this month. Further new committees recommended in those reports will be brought forward for appointment in April, following the winding down of our current EU Committee and its remaining sub-committees. I beg to move.
Fertilisers and Ammonium Nitrate Material (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Earl of Courtown
That the draft Orders and Regulations laid before the House on 9, 14, 17, 23 and 31 December 2020 and 5 January 2021 be approved.
Relevant documents: 41st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 26 and 27 January.
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.
Alexei Navalny
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, first I pay tribute to the courage of the protesters in Russia standing up against corruption. Fifteen months ago, the Government’s response to the Russia report said that
“driving dirty money and money launderers out of the UK is a priority.”
It confirmed legislation to strengthen Companies House, make limited partnerships less open to money laundering and establish a register of beneficial ownership of foreign companies owning UK property. Is this still a priority, and when will we see the promised legislation? What is the timetable for broadening the scope of the Magnitsky sanctions to include corruption?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that I speak for all noble Lords when I join the noble Lord, Lord Collins, in commending the courage of what we have seen, not just in Moscow but around Russia, in support of Mr Navalny and his early and immediate release from detention. In response to the noble Lord’s question, the Russia report remains a key priority, as I said in your Lordships’ House last week. Our response was issued on the day. In addition to what the noble Lord mentioned, legislation will also enable security services and law enforcement agencies, for example, to tackle early threats of hostile activity. The National Crime Agency offences to criminalise harmful activity will be strengthened. As I said last week, we are reviewing visas in tier 1 issued before 2015. We will be working on the legislative timetable through the usual channels.
On sanctions, the noble Lord will be aware that we have already sanctioned one organisation and six individuals on the issue of the poisoning of Mr Navalny. On the issue of future designations, we will look at egregious abuses of human rights. As the noble Lord is aware, we are currently looking at corruption. We will be looking to see how we can broaden the scope of the sanctions regime in the near future.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to Mr Navalny and the other courageous protesters. The noble Lord rightly said that sanctions are most effective when a number of countries jointly implement them. What joint action are they taking with the EU on sanctions in this appalling case, especially given that Mr Navalny was diagnosed in Germany as having been poisoned with Novichok? Does the Minister agree that it would help such joint working with the whole of the EU if the Government recognised the EU envoy as an ambassador?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Baroness’s second point, I believe that I have already informed the House that that is currently in discussion with the EU. On the substantive issue of sanctions, I have said that it works in tandem; we are working closely with the EU, not just on the sanctions regime and co-ordination with other allies. On the question about close working with the EU, the noble Baroness will have noted the G7 statement that just went out, which included the High Commissioner from the European Union, underlining the importance we are attaching, within the context of the G7, to the role of the European Union.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with Mr Navalny that only if we sanction what he calls “the people with the money”, not those operatives who are obeying orders, will there be any impact at all on the Russian authorities?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I agree with the noble Baroness. That is why it is a priority for my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary to look at the issues of corruption and illicit finance in the broadening of the global human rights sanctions regime.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)
Can the Minister confirm that, while our Government rightly use sanctions as a weapon against the loss of Mr Navalny’s freedom, the many other links that our cultural heritage shares with Russia will not be harmed? I refer, of course, to our shared music, creative writing, sculpture, university links, and the many other creative ways whereby our citizens and professionals share common bonds and deep enduring friendships. Can the Minister assure the House that sanctions will avoid harming those important channels of mutual growth?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I reassure my noble friend that I agree with her. I am sure I speak for all noble Lords when I say that our challenge and dispute is not with the Russian people. We are standing on their side on their right to representation, and in the protests that we have seen in support of Mr Navalny. There are quite strict criteria for how the sanctions are applied: they are for egregious abuse of human rights.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, any abuse of human rights and corruption must be condemned and be in the best interests of the Kremlin and the people of Russia. I join the noble Lord, Lord Collins, in calling for a robust debate on policy towards Russia. Will the call for sanctions be expected to bring the desired results, or is it the requisite reaction? Are there any areas of trust in which a workable relationship with the Kremlin can be hammered out with evidence that we, with like-minded partners, have the ear of decision-makers in this regard?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s first point: wherever sanctions have been applied since we introduced them last year, we have seen that people take notice—Administrations and regimes take notice. But there is an important distinction that we, in using that sanctions regime on human rights, pinpoint individuals and organisations specifically, so it is not about standing against a country in its collective form.
On the issue of relations with Russia: of course, we continue to engage directly with Russia. As I have said before, it is a P5 member of the UN Security Council, and there are many issues around the world on security and conflict in which Russia has an important role to play.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I, too, salute the courage of Alexei Navalny. Nobody is questioning the Minister’s commitment to this issue, but the sanctions have not worked. Sanctioning the people with the money is not necessarily sanctioning the people who have committed the human rights offences. It is Putin’s mates in London receiving the dirty money who we need to go for. The connection to Putin is the thing that will hit them, because while that money is allowed into London in the way it is at the moment—and, outside Europe, London is the centre—Putin can act as he wishes. If we fail to do this, it will start to look like the UK Government are compromised in some way. I do not believe they are, but it will look as though they are.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
As someone who worked in the City of London for 20 years, the integrity and robustness of the structures of the City of London are of paramount importance to me, as they are to the UK Government. Therefore, I share the noble Lord’s view that it is important we take constructive steps to stop the use of illicit financing and stop money flowing through London in the manner he suggests.
Lord Walney (Non-Afl)
President Putin’s abhorrent disregard for international law has turned his great nation into a pariah on the global stage. I accept what the Minister said about keeping specific measures under review, but do the Government at least accept that the current suite of measures from the UK and our partners is not, thus far, proving sufficient to rein in this behaviour?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
While I note what the noble Lord has said, the steps we have taken within the context of the OPCW and with the G7 partners does, I believe, demonstrate to the Russians a strong international response. It is important we continue to strengthen our alliances in this respect so Russia does take notice and, more importantly, does so with regard to courageous individuals such as Alexei Navalny, who is being held without detention. Just to update your Lordships’ House: as I was coming in, I was informed that in his hearing, his appeal was not upheld, so he remains in detention. I will, of course, update the House as we get more details. We hope Russia will take note of these international actions, and I believe in certain quarters it is doing just that.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for updating the House with that news, disappointing though it is. In preparation for this Question, I checked the 2019 Conservative election manifesto, which speaks of the UK being a champion of the rule of law, human rights and anti-corruption efforts. Does the Minister agree that we need to work consistently to have clear, consistent rules dealing with Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Thailand and, indeed, the UK Overseas Territories, with Magnitsky-style sanctions and other actions, setting up plans for reaction, if and when standards are breached? I should probably declare my position on the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness poses a wide-ranging question about different countries and jurisdictions—she also mentioned the British Overseas Territories. Without generalising, it is important that we look at the specifics of each case, but I understand what she puts forward. We need to have measures to hand, and the human rights sanctions regime is one with which we can act specifically and, importantly, with key partners and allies to ensure individuals or groups who abuse human rights are held to account for their actions. I hope that, in time, as we have discussed today, the broadening of any scope of those sanctions, on the issue of illicit finance, in particular, will also be to the satisfaction of Members of your Lordships’ House.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will call Members to speak in the order on today’s list. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted and uncalled speakers will not be heard. Other than the mover of an amendment or the Minister, Members may speak only once on each amendment. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are permitted but discouraged. A Member wishing to ask such a question, including Members in the Chamber, must email the clerk.
Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the Question, I will collect the voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for, if the Question is put, they must make this clear when they speak.
Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill
Thursday 28th January 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Act 2021 View all Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 118-I Marshalled list for Third Reading - (25 Jan 2021)
Lord Alton of Liverpool
“(f) there are no grounds to suspect the operator intends to use the telecommunications infrastructure, or any part of it, to breach human rights after 31 December 2023.(1A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(f), “human rights” has the meaning of “the Convention rights” given by section 1(1) (the Convention Rights) of the Human Rights Act 1998.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment seeks to prevent companies from using UK telecommunications infrastructure to facilitate human rights abuse. To the extent that “use” of the infrastructure “or any part of it” brings in the supply chain, this seeks to engage the transparency in supply chain provisions of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 1 we return to an issue that we debated at Report stage of this Bill, back in June. Amendment 1 seeks to prevent companies using the United Kingdom’s telecommunications infrastructure to facilitate human rights abuses. To the extent that use of the infrastructure, or any part of it, brings in the supply chain, this seeks to engage the transparency in supply-chain provisions of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
Exactly one year ago, I asked the Government what assessment they had been able to make of the implications of their decision to award contracts to Huawei and other companies required under China’s national intelligence law to support, assist and co-operate with that state’s intelligence work. I also asked about Huawei’s compliance with the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and what consideration they have given to such compliance in regard to their decision to award contracts to Huawei. Last year, the Government deftly avoided answering my question by simply saying it had
“expressed its concerns about China’s systematic human rights violations in Xinjiang, including credible and growing reports of forced labour”.
Throughout the previous two years, 2018 and 2019, I had raised my concerns about some of the shocking events unravelling in western China, a region in which I have travelled. In August 2019, for instance, I asked the Government what assessment they had made of reports that United Kingdom investors hold shares totalling £800 million in companies that supply CCTV and facial recognition technology being used to track Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang. Although aware of the reports, the Government said they had
“not undertaken analysis of British investor shareholdings in Chinese surveillance companies”.
I wonder whether that is still the situation. Perhaps when the Minister comes to reply she can tell us.
My dissatisfaction with those replies, and in the context of my involvement in the legislative stages of the 2015 Act, my pro bono role as a trustee of the charity Arise, and as vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Uighurs, prompted me to speak in Committee on this Bill on 19 May, and again on Report, on 29 June, when I moved an all-party amendment to the Bill. Co-sponsors of that amendment were the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who is in his seat today, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and my noble friend Lady Falkner. Two of them will be speaking to this group today.
In a series of powerful speeches from right across the Chamber—with only one partially dissenting voice—Members of you Lordships’ House made clear their deep anxiety that the Government were ready to hand over up to 35% of our 5G infrastructure to Huawei, a company that actively partners with the Chinese Communist Party in Xinjiang, where 1 million Uighur are incarcerated and used as slave labour. Parallels were drawn, during the course of that debate, with the way in which companies such as Siemens had used labourers in Nazi concentration camps to build an industrial empire, and the way in which Stalin used gulag labour to power his economic programmes on the backs of those who had been incarcerated.
In June, the Minister asked us not to divide the House but said that she would be willing to return at Third Reading—today—with an amendment to provide a human rights threshold which companies would be required to meet. It was also suggested that the Telecommunications (Security) Bill would be a more appropriate piece of legislation on which to attach such an amendment. I would be grateful if, when the Minister comes to reply, she can confirm that the title of that Bill has been drawn in such a way as to exclude that possibility.
Since June, meetings have been held with the noble Baroness and Ministers from the Department of International Trade, the Home Office and the Foreign Office. The debate also triggered a determination to lay further amendments both to the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill and to the Trade Bill. I know that the Minister has genuinely and faithfully tried her very best to honour the commitment that she gave to the House in June, and I really am grateful to her for the time and trouble she has taken throughout.
Let me remind the Government and the House why this issue is not going to go away quietly, and why the House will have the chance, on Tuesday next, to demonstrate that. Academics have described Xinjiang as the world’s most shocking example of state-sanctioned slavery. In Committee, I drew the Government’s attention to the work of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and quoted the institute’s Vicky Xu, who said that the idea that Huawei is not working directly with the authorities in Xinjiang is just “straight-up nonsense”.
I sent the Minister a video recording of shackled and blindfolded Uighur Muslims being led from trains to camps. The Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, whose own family suffered the grotesque horrors of the Shoah— commemorated yesterday, on Holocaust Memorial Day—said that such scenes were
“reminiscent of something not seen for a long time”.
I know that the Minister shares the sense of revulsion that we have all felt on learning of forced sterilisations and forced abortions for Uighur women, to prevent births within their community; the desecration of Uighur cemeteries to eradicate any trace of their identity; the deliberate separation of family members; propagandised re-education; and their exploitation as forced labour. Indeed, she drew my attention to an article in The Economist, setting out the scale and nature of what is being done. We all need to have a better understanding of what it really means when we see a label that says: “made in China”. Who made it? How was it made? Under what conditions was it made?
By way of exchange with the Minister, I would draw her attention to an article in The Spectator that appeared on 23 January. It was written by Harald Maass. He gives the example of Coca Cola’s production plant, which he says is
“a joint venture with a Chinese state company … surrounded by prisons and re-education camps in which China suppresses local ethnic minorities”.
Within 30 kilometres of that plant, there are 25 prisons and internment camps. In the whole of Xinjiang, there are at least 380 internment camps, some of which have huge structures and watchtowers, barbed wire and thousands of inmates. An analysis of satellite imagery suggests that there are crematoria in at least nine of them. The Chinese Communist Party says that the camps are educational and training facilities. Precisely what purpose does a crematorium have in an educational facility?
Uighurs are forced to work for factories or farms making products, some of which are sold in the United Kingdom. Over the past two years, work programmes have been significantly enlarged, with official statistics showing that 2.6 million “surplus rural workers” in Xinjiang were “relocated” within one year—an increase of 46%.
In July, the Government responded to the concerns expressed about both the use of slave labour and the security challenges by announcing that they would be removing Huawei from the UK’s 5G mobile network. UK mobile providers have been banned from buying new Huawei 5G equipment and they will have to remove all its 5G kit by 2027. I think the Government’s decision is the right one, and they have taken notice of the concerns which were raised during the debate in your Lordships’ House. In December, they went on to publish the 5G Supply Chain Diversification Strategy, and I also welcome that.
But the Government have gone further. Last week, Dominic Raab announced more plans to outlaw Chinese imports which can be linked to human rights abuse, and there will be fines and possible sanctions against companies which are connected to slave labour. He told the House of Commons that he had been shocked by, in his words, “the industrial scale” of the forced labour and the concentration camps, saying that he had never again expected to see pictures of people being herded like animals on to trains to take them away from kith and kin to be enslaved and stripped of their humanity. Such echoes from a terrible past have also been heard in reports of human hair taken from the shaved heads of Uighur people being exported to be used in wigs by those who, sadly, seem equally comfortable wearing fashion items made by Uighur slaves.
We await news from the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, about how Magnitsky sanctions will be used against senior Chinese Communist Party officials who have overseen these programmes of mass incarceration. Perhaps the noble Baroness can give the House further information about when such action will be taken.
It is instructive that the US Government have already imposed sanctions and restrictions against 48 Chinese companies suspected of using forced labour or providing technical assistance to the suppression system of Xinjiang, described by the US Congress as the
“largest mass incarceration of a minority population in the world”.
Adrian Zenz, a leading authority on Xinjiang, estimates that most of today’s cotton in Xinjiang is picked under forced labour conditions and with minimal payment. I particularly pay tribute to the BBC for highlighting this in a documentary recently. Zenz says:
“More than half a million Uyghurs — probably whether they want to or not — are being sent by the state to the fields for three months”.
Brands including Hugo Boss, Adidas, Muji, Uniqlo, Costco, Caterpillar, Lacoste, Ralph Lauren and Tommy Hilfiger have been named in reports linking them to Xinjiang factories or materials. One in five cotton products worldwide is made with Xinjiang cotton. To its credit, Marks & Spencer has pledged to stop using any cotton from Xinjiang.
Next week, on Tuesday, the House will be asked to vote again on the all-party genocide amendment to the Trade Bill, which was passed in your Lordships’ House by a formidable majority of 126. In the House of Commons, with the equally formidable support of the former leader of the Conservative Party, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, Nus Ghani Member of Parliament and other senior figures from the Government Benches, it came within 11 votes of achieving a majority. The movers of that amendment in both Houses have listened to constructive suggestions and have modified the amendment, which now stands in lieu and is on our Marshalled List.
There is no greater abuse of human rights than genocide: it is the crime above all crimes. No other word adequately describes a state complicit in the destruction of a people’s identity; complicit in mass surveillance; complicit in forced labour and enforced slavery; complicit in the uprooting of people, the destruction of communities and families, the prevention of births, and the ruination of cemeteries where generations of loved ones had been buried. It is the only word to describe a state which seeks to re-educate you so that you will believe that you, your people, your religion and your culture never existed, and the certainty that, through ethno-religious cleansing, you will cease to exist in the future.
Last week, I read the testimony of Sayragul Sauytbay, a woman who escaped from one of the camps. She said:
“Some prisoners were hung on the wall and beaten with electrified truncheons. There were prisoners who were made to sit on a chair of nails. I saw people return … covered in blood. Some came back without fingernails.”
One elderly woman’s skin had been flayed. She said:
“Some prisoners were hung on the wall and beaten with electrified truncheons”,
and that prisoners are used for medical experiments:
“Some of the men become sterile. Women are routinely raped.”
On the same day that the House of Commons voted on the genocide amendment from your Lordships’ House, the incoming and outgoing US Administrations both declared events in Xinjiang to be a genocide. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said at his confirmation hearing in the US Senate that:
“On the Uyghurs I think we’re very much in agreement. And the forcing of men, women and children into concentration camps, trying to, in effect, re-educate them to be adherents to the ideology of the Chinese Communist Party, all of that speaks to an effort to commit genocide.”
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con) [V]
My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House at this stage in the Bill, especially following that excellent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I do not wish to repeat many of the arguments that have been put at an earlier stage in the Bill and the information which has been made available to the House about the atrocities which are happening in China today—not just among the Uighur people. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has set out in great detail the arguments which I would have thought would persuade any Government of the virtues of this amendment.
I join him in paying tribute to my noble friend the Minister, who has worked hard to find a way through this. I appreciate that collective responsibility means that it is not always possible to deliver what Ministers might wish to achieve. However, following on from the remarks the noble Lord made about the debate on Tuesday next week on the all-party amendment on genocide, I think it is absolutely outrageous that those of us who wish to speak in that debate are unable to do so unless we appear in person at the House.
I have just received a letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments advising me that it is very undesirable for Members to come to the House, as indeed it is from a wider social point of view. At the beginning of each sitting, the Chair has indicated that all Members will be treated equally. It seems that the procedures that operate under ping-pong are preventing Members of the House carrying out their duties while being socially responsible and while following the advice from Public Health England and Scotland. I hope very much that this can be looked at before next Tuesday, so that we are all able to carry out our duties to the House of Commons and meet our responsibilities to our fellow citizens.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, seemed to indicate that he would not press this amendment to a Division. Had he done so, I would have happily supported him, because I believe that it is a sensible amendment for the reasons put forward in earlier stages of the Bill. However, as I have said, I will not detain the House other than to indicate my support for the noble Lord and my admiration for the enormous energy that he has put into defending human rights and championing the cause of those people in China who, unbelievably, are experiencing what we have always been told after the events in Germany during the 1930s and 1940s would never be allowed to happen again.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I too start by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his commitment and persistence. He is so often the conscience of this House on human rights abuses globally, and once more he has made a very powerful speech.
How can anyone who watched the ceremony to mark Holocaust Memorial Day, which was broadcast last night, not be deeply moved. It made plain how propaganda led to persecution and, step by step, to the appalling slaughter of the Jews and others in the Holocaust. It has been said, “Never again”, and international measures were put in place to try to counter such atrocities and bring people to account, yet there have been genocides in Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur, Myanmar and so on. As the Holocaust memorial event also mentioned, we are now hearing appalling accounts coming out of China, especially in relation to the Uighurs, including of forced organ harvesting, the sterilisation of women and the re-education camps. We hear credible reports, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned, of slave labour. We know that, in Germany, the chemical and pharmaceutical industries, in which the country had an international lead, drew on such slave labour, as did others.
We have seen worrying signs in the UK and across Europe more generally, and especially whipped up recently in the United States, of propaganda and discrimination being exploited by those seeking power. It has been an object lesson in how these things can happen, step by step, and how constant vigilance is always required. We knew it then, and we know it now, so the mover of the amendment and those speaking to it are right that, even here, in this limited Bill covering a specific area, the test should be applied as to whether an operator could be using infrastructure to breach human rights.
I am glad to hear of the efforts being made by the Minister to seek to address this, as the Government also did in the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill, and there managed, working with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and others, to bring forward a relevant amendment. In her letter to us, the noble Baroness cites the actions of the Foreign Secretary in relation to Xinjiang. We are waiting to see the results of this translated into targeted sanctions, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned, and the persuasion of other countries, starting with the EU, to follow suit. Sanctions are most effective if they are undertaken collectively.
We will shortly be considering the National Security and Investment Bill, and I am sure that these issues will be raised again. Prior to that, we have the Trade Bill. Surely if the Government are committed to this issue, when we get to that Bill, it is obvious that the Government must accept the amendment on genocide. How could we possibly agree to trade with a country that is committing genocide?
I thank the Government for their engagement, including that of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, with Sir Geoffrey Nice, the chair of the China Tribunal, on forced organ harvesting, and I look forward to further engagement. However, that engagement needs to turn into specific action. We cannot turn a blind eye, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, will make sure that we do not.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey of Didcot, has withdrawn, so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB) [V]
My Lords, last night at 8 pm, I lit my candle to commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day. Yesterday, Jewish leaders asked us to include later, less egregious events that have been committed against other groups—notably, and most recently, Chinese Uighurs. China is a superpower and we are a mid-sized state, but if the measure of a people is its moral standing, the United Kingdom has stood tall in the past and should continue to do so.
I note that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is evaluating whether to press this amendment. I say to the House only that the amendment is modest. It seeks to prevent companies using UK telecommunications infrastructure to facilitate human rights abuses. The consumers of that infrastructure would not want infrastructure delivered to them on the back of human rights abuses. It would also give investors a steer, because they would know that the law is clearly set out, and they could make their choices accordingly. There is little that I would add, other than to say that the people of this country rightly hold their leaders to high standards, and this House should uphold those expectations.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to speak at the Third Reading of this Bill. Like other noble Lords, I do not wish to detain the House for long, because it has taken some time to get to this stage.
I want to speak to Amendment 1, but it is worth reminding noble Lords that this Bill is, of course, intended to help the 10 million people in this country living in flats and apartments have the right to ask their landlord to help them get better broadband connectivity. This is a Bill to stop landlords failing to engage with telecoms operators. If we have learned nothing else in the past 10 months, although I am sure that we have learned plenty, broadband and better connectivity overall is now absolutely essential for people to be able to go about their daily lives in this country. As we have been hearing in the Covid-19 Select Committee of this House, the need for strong and reliable digital infrastructure will continue even after the pandemic has receded.
We have heard a very powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I remember him asking me the question this time last year. I will just say this to him: as he set out in his powerful speech, since the Bill was first debated last summer, events have indeed moved on. Although, as the Minister set out in her letter to all noble Lords, the amendment is not in scope, I am pleased to note that he and other noble Lords have recognised that the Minister has worked very hard to see if a way could be found to bring forward an amendment to the Bill that was in scope. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, will accept that the motivation behind his amendment and the passion and knowledge with which he speaks have been recognised and widely accepted, and are already influencing policy. He rightly pointed to the recent statement made by the Foreign Secretary as well as, of course, to the Telecommunications (Security) Bill which is being considered in the other place and will reach us.
I want also to pay tribute to the 5G Supply Chain Diversification Strategy which was published last month. When I was the Secretary of State with responsibility for digital, we made the decision last year about who would be able to work to roll out better connectivity. It was absolutely clear that we must not find ourselves in the situation again of being overly reliant on one supplier; we need to have more suppliers in the chain. I think that the new US Administration will help us through working together to achieve that.
The noble Lord, with his amendment, has compelled the Government to act. He has outlined the fact that there will be another opportunity, next week in the Trade Bill, for the House to consider the very important matters that he and other noble Lords have raised. For the reason that our fellow citizens need better connectivity, and that those who live in flats or apartments must be able to ask their landlords to engage in connectivity issues, this Bill is much needed now on the statute book.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, on Report, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said that this amendment would empower the Government to deny infrastructure access to operators whom, they believed, were abusing human rights. This is part of an important conversation about how modern slavery legislation might apply to the digital economy and especially its supply chain.
Since Report, this argument has been rehearsed on a number of occasions in other places. That reflects the tenacity of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and his colleagues. Each time the argument is repeated, it is no less powerful, horrifying or revolting to hear what is happening.
As we heard from the noble Lord, the Trade Bill has been one focus for this discussion. The Government spurned a real opportunity when they whipped Conservative MPs to vote against the so-called genocide amendment earlier this month. That amendment reflected the discussions during the passage of the Trade Bill in your Lordships’ House. It sought to introduce a mechanism to allow British courts to determine whether a foreign country had committed genocide. The amendment was introduced in your Lordships’ House to deal not just with the Uighurs but with other human rights issues as well. I hope that your Lordships will listen sympathetically next Tuesday when the amendment is reintroduced.
I, too, thank the Minister both for her comments and for her detailed letter, which showed empathy on this issue and explained why her department had been unable to bring forward the amendment previously promised. My admiration for the ingenuity of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others has increased. They have managed to table this amendment to a Bill that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, correctly characterised it, is intended to help tenants obtain broadband.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, also implied that the issue had, as a result of these discussions, somehow been dealt with. Although there has been welcome movement on the Government’s part over Huawei, it would be wrong to say that the issue has been dealt with. I asked the House of Lords Library whether a law exists that prevents telecommunications operators from using their infrastructure to breach human rights. I thank the Library for its thorough work, but it was unable to find evidence of legislation preventing telecoms operators from using tele- communications infrastructure to breach human rights. In other words, there is no such legislation. The Library asked Ofcom whether it was aware of any such requirement in legislation; Ofcom said that it was not. Legal experts were also unaware of anything in telecoms legislation. In other words, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the signatories to this amendment have identified a gap in the legislation.
The Human Rights Act applies only to public authorities and other bodies—public or private—that perform public functions. There is no general requirement on companies to comply with human rights obligations, although that has sometimes been applied to the relationship between companies and private individuals. As others have said, there are UN guiding principles on human rights and business. The Companies Act 2006, the EU non-financial reporting directive 2014 and the Modern Slavery Act all contain commentary on human rights but none deals with this particular issue.
It is a shame that we have had to have this debate almost by proxy. Even the noble Lord, Lord Alton, would admit that this Bill was not designed to address this issue. Such a Bill is needed so that we can have this discussion in a discrete environment. I understand that my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones was promised that there would be a communications security Bill. I assume that the National Security and Investment Bill is what that has metamorphosised into—perhaps the Minister could confirm that. As my noble friend Lady Northover suggested, this issue could be discussed in that context. I am working on that Bill, but it seems to me to have to been drawn very narrowly. Given this legislative absence, it is appropriate that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others have brought forward this amendment now. If the noble Lord, Lord Alton, decides to push it to a vote, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches will support it. If he does not, we shall support an amendment to the Trade Bill. Even if the noble Lord decides not to push for a vote today, the Government can be sure that this issue is not done with and will not go away.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has rehearsed the background to his Report stage amendment and explained the reasons for bringing it back to your Lordships’ House today. We simply cannot turn a blind eye. Standing aside or ignoring what is happening in China is tantamount to condoning the appalling actions described by the noble Lord in his powerful and moving speech.
A lot has changed since June. I am sure that the Minister will update us on subsequent government action, particularly in relation to Huawei equipment. As a number of noble Lords have said, other legislation—including the Trade Bill, before your Lordships’ House again next Tuesday—has amendments bearing on this issue. The case made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is unanswerable, as I have made clear. However, tabling this amendment to this Bill is perhaps not the best way of achieving his wider objectives. It might, I suppose, adversely affect the chances of the big win that we hope to achieve on Tuesday with his amendment to the Trade Bill.
Everyone who has spoken today has supported the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and paid tribute to his campaigning and his ceaseless tenacity on this cause. If he chooses to divide the House, we will support him, but I hope that he will feel able to accept the Government’s position on this narrowly focused Bill and that it would be better to defer the decision to Tuesday’s debate on the Trade Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this important debate. We all agree that this is a matter of great importance, which is why, on Report, I committed to bringing the issue back at this stage. I said:
“We will endeavour to find all the time possible to have sufficient ground to bring back a government amendment.”—[Official Report, 29/6/20; col. 538.]
I would like to reassure noble Lords that, working with officials in my department, I have tried my utmost to find a way forward.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his generous words. I have virtually met and spoken with him and other noble Lords on several occasions to discuss their concerns. My officials have had discussions with their colleagues in the Home Office, the Foreign Office and the Public Bill Office on how the Government might bring forward a legislative provision that—to quote the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on Report—had “teeth”.
We put two different versions of a government amendment forward to do this but were advised by the Public Bill Office that they were out of scope. It has been unequivocal that this includes any amendment addressing issues in the supply chain, such as those issues rightly raised by the noble Lord. Such issues—and thus, amendments seeking to address them—are therefore out of scope of this Bill. As a result, regrettably the Government have been unable to table an amendment to this effect, as I set out in my letter to all Peers on 26 January.
This also means that this amendment will not impact on the supply chain in the way that its sponsors intend. Indeed, it does not touch the supply chain at all. This is why we are resisting the amendment today, but along with other noble Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for beginning a very important new stage of the conversation about modern slavery, particularly in Xinjiang, and human rights more broadly.
Several noble Lords invited me to share some of the actions that the Government have taken, and I am pleased to do so. On 12 January, the Foreign Secretary announced a series of measures to ensure that UK businesses and the public sector are not complicit in human rights violations in Xinjiang. This includes four main actions: first, strengthening the overseas business risk guidance to make clearer the risks to UK businesses investing in, or with, supply chains in Xinjiang; secondly, a review of export controls as they apply to the situation in Xinjiang, to ensure that we are doing all that we can to prevent the export of goods that may contribute to human rights violations in Xinjiang; thirdly, the introduction of financial penalties for organisations which fail to comply with the Modern Slavery Act; and, fourthly, ensuring that government and public sector bodies have the evidence that they require to exclude suppliers that are complicit in human rights violations in Xinjiang.
This announcement is a clear demonstration of the UK’s global leadership role in standing up for the rights of Uighurs and other ethnic minorities in Xinjiang. I thank all noble Lords who acknowledged that Government’s work in this area. These measures will help to ensure that no British organisation, whether public or private sector, is contributing inadvertently to violations in Xinjiang. As we know, consumer opinion and reputational considerations can and do play an important part in influencing corporate behaviour, and we as a Government are sending a strong signal that we will not stand by as these violations continue, and that there is a reputational and economic cost to them.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked me three questions. The first was about the timing of putting into practice the legislation from the Home Office. We will legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows us to introduce penalties for non-compliance, and other measures which will strengthen the transparency legislation.
Regarding our conversations with BT, I am sure that he will understand that it would not be appropriate to comment on conversations with an individual company, but I think that he will also agree that we, like him, want respect for human rights to be at the centre of all business that takes place in this country.
On the role of the judiciary and state genocide, which the noble Lord understands much better than many people, and certainly me, state genocide clearly is very difficult to prove in a judicial context. The evidential threshold is high, and proceedings tend to be long and costly. It would be difficult for the High Court effectively to determine genocide, with the inevitable constraints that would exist on access to evidence and witnesses, and it would be wrong for the Government or MPs to subcontract to the courts our responsibility for deciding when a country’s human rights record is sufficiently bad that we will not engage in trade negotiations. Parliament’s responsibility is to determine when sanctions take place and with whom we negotiate. We continue to believe that responsibility rests with Parliament.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received requests to ask a short question of elucidation from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, we are very grateful for the Minister’s reply. She said that the Government wished to table a specific amendment which was ruled out of order by the Public Bill Office. Is it the Government’s intention to bring the precise power that they were going to take in this Bill in the Telecommunications (Security) Bill? The Government control the legislative process. Will they bring forward the precise proposal they wished to bring forward in this Bill in another, which will come before us in the near future?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Just to clarify, the Government brought two versions of the amendment, not one. To the best of my knowledge, there is no intention to bring it back because the focus of the Telecommunications (Security) Bill is on telecoms security and national security. Therefore, any such amendment would face the same barrier as it faced in this Bill—namely, it would be out of scope. If it were effective on the supply chain, it would be out of scope.
Baroness Northover (LD)
The Government have always said that genocide must be decided judicially. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, has always reiterated that. Can the Minister clarify what she apparently said —that the Government seem now to have decided, in effect, that genocide might be decided by Parliament?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I hope I did not confuse the House. I am very happy to put in writing the Government’s exact position on this.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
I have received a request to ask a short question from the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the way she set out the case to the House. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, she talked a little more about digital supply chain transparency. Given that this falls within her departmental brief, can she explain whether it will be within the security Bill that will come forward, so that it can be part of the discussion that takes place on that Bill? Also, will she share the wording of the two amendments she referred to in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, with the House so that Members can decide whether there are things that we would like to test on the Table Office, to see whether they could be brought into scope?
Baroness Barran (Con)
On the noble Lord’s second point, I will have to defer to colleagues about the ability to do that. In relation to the supply chain, my understanding is that that work is complementary to the security Bill rather than directly within it. Again, I am happy to write to the noble Lord to confirm that.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I promised the House that I would listen carefully to noble Lords’ contributions. I gently say to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, that we would not have been having this debate if the amendment had not been in scope, so this amendment is in scope. The problem for the Government has been being able to get an amendment in scope to deal with the human rights issue. I recognise that the problem is that this is not a tree on which you can very easily hang new limbs. The Bill was therefore an opportunity, rather than necessarily the right piece of legislation, to bring before the House the enormities of what is happening in Xinjiang and the links of state agencies and arms, such as Huawei, to the Chinese Communist Party. That we have done across the Chamber very successfully, and I am grateful to the Government for the moves they have made. I set that out in my remarks at the outset of the debate. I am particularly grateful to the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, who has been exemplary in the way she has dealt with the arguments and with individuals, especially difficult, persistent, awkward Members of your Lordships’ House, who do not easily let go on issues of this kind, and I do not think the House would expect us to.
The Minister has been given notice that we will be here again on Tuesday dealing with the extraordinary issue of genocide and what can be done about it. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, I was puzzled by what the Minister said to the House a few minutes ago. It has always been the position of the Government—not just this Government, but their predecessors as well—that the determination of genocide is a matter for the courts. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself said that in the House of Commons only a week ago, and therein lies the problem. If there is not a court mechanism in the United Kingdom to deal with this, we have to rely on international courts, particularly the International Criminal Court, and everyone knows that if you were to take to the Security Council the horrors taking place in Xinjiang, which have been described in your Lordships’ House, the possibility that the People’s Republic of China would refer itself to the International Criminal Court for a criminal investigation is risible.
I am a great supporter of the ICC, which was set up by the Rome statute and a genuine attempt to fill the gap that has always been there since the 1948 convention on the crime of genocide, but sadly it has not done so and we still have to address how we can get determinations of genocide made. I think the only way we can do that is now through our own courts. Senior figures from our judiciary have spoken in favour of this. Retired Supreme Court judges, a former Lord Chief Justice and many senior figures in your Lordships’ House with a legal background have said that it is practical and something that our courts can and should do. I hope the House will have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said today.
I end by saying two things, one which the Minister will be pleased to hear and the other directed to the House authorities. Like the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I find it extraordinary that, under ping-pong arrangements, it is not possible to take part in a debate on something as important as an amendment sent back to your Lordships’ House by the House of Commons on an issue such as genocide without being physically present. To be told that in the same week that we are being told that we should not be here at all unless we really have to be is vexing, to put it mildly. I hope the House authorities will consider that and see whether there is anything that can be done before next Tuesday, as the noble Lord said.
Having made all those points, the Minister will be very pleased to know that it is not now my intention to force this issue to a vote today. I simply thank all those who have taken part in our proceedings. Like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I say to the House that this is not over yet and there is so much more that can be said and will be said before it can be brought to a resolution. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Barran
“(k) aimed at ensuring that nothing done by the operator in the exercise of the Part 4A code right unnecessarily prevents or inhibits the provision of an electronic communications service by any other operator.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require a Part 4A code right to be subject to terms intended to prevent uncompetitive behaviour.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I have tabled this amendment in light of the strength of feeling in both Houses. Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have been clear about the intentions and goals of the legislation. We want to make it easier for digital infrastructure providers to access multiple-dwelling buildings so that those living in flats and apartments can access the connectivity they need from the providers they want. We want to ensure that residents are given choice and are able to access fast, reliable connectivity without being limited by their property owner’s silence.
Members of both Houses have raised concerns that consumers could find themselves locked into a provider as a result of this legislation. We continue to believe that such a scenario is unlikely and the legislation as drafted originally prevents it happening. The Bill, for example, does not limit the number of concurrent Part 4A orders that can exist at a property. This allows any resident in the property to search for the provider or service they want and request a service, even in properties where gigabit-capable, full-fibre connections might already exist. That provider is then able to make an application for a Part 4A order via the courts, should the landowner repeatedly fail to respond to requests for access.
Nevertheless, while we are confident that sufficient protections are already in place, we believe there is a benefit in taking a belt-and-braces approach. This amendment ensures that when operators access a property under a Part 4A order the terms on which they will do so will preclude them installing their infrastructure in such a way that would prevent a subsequent operator installing their own apparatus. As with the other terms imposed by a Part 4A order, they will be contained in regulations. Those regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and, before they are made, they will have been consulted on with a range of key stakeholders. In this way, we seek to prevent a scenario whereby an operator purposefully installs their network equipment within the property so that it obstructs a second operator in installing theirs and providing a service to the building. I hope that this amendment reassures noble Lords and alleviates their concerns on the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the amendment, which we welcome, brings us into the territory of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, if she is still in her virtual seat, will be sitting more easily in this part of the discussion.
When speaking previously to an amendment brought by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, supported by myself and others, the Minister agreed that we should aim to simplify the lives of consumers. To that end, she said that the Government would be willing to table an amendment at Third Reading. My understanding is that this amendment honours that statement. The Minister said that Her Majesty’s Government consider it fair to amend the Bill in this way and that the aim is to include measures to ensure that an operator must not install their equipment in any such anti-competitive way. Therefore, the test of the amendment is whether it reaches that objective.
I shall discuss two aspects of the amendment’s wording. First, the words,
“nothing done by the operator”,
seem to imply more than just technology, because there are other things that an operator could do. Perhaps the Minister can explain “nothing”. It could refer to a contractual matter or all sorts of other areas, including service as well as the purely technological. Secondly, there is the phrase, “unnecessarily prevents”. What is a necessary prevention? In other words, how will the regulations deal with those two areas—“nothing” and “unnecessary”?
I had the opportunity to virtually bump into the Minister this morning—obviously with at least two metres between us—and give her some warning of my concerns. Regarding the practical way this matter will work, let us imagine that I am a tenant in a new property. I move in, wish to switch my operator and start to encounter technological problems with the process. What do I do next? How does the amendment help me to deliver on that?
Quickly in conclusion, none of this means anything if we do not have great connectivity. I could not, therefore, pass this opportunity by without asking the Minister where we are on that. The delivery of ultrafast broadband was a subject for discussion in Committee and on Report, as was the creation of an open source network. It is safe to say that some time has passed since we last discussed that issue. As the Minister stated, some technological developments have included, not least, the gradual removal of Huawei from the supply chain. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister has made several statements about the bandwidth that will be provided and its extent—statements at odds with what network providers have said is possible. Where are we on the Prime Minister’s gigabit connectivity being available to everyone? Where are we on the development of open source networks? If the Minister can answer those questions, I am sure that we will support the amendment.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con) [V]
My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of Members’ interests. I was not a Member of this House when the Bill was debated at Second Reading or on Report. Therefore, I begin by saying how much I welcome it. In my experience as the Minister responsible for rural broadband rollout between 2010 and 2016, I soon came to realise that planning is the biggest obstacle that prevents the rapid deployment of the broadband that this country desperately needs. The planning system is hopelessly complex and time-consuming, and imposes enormous costs on operators. Anything that can make their lives easier has to be welcomed. Multi-dwelling units contain dozens of potential recipients of ultrafast broadband. If we can make it easier and simpler for operators to deploy their technology, that is to be welcomed.
I was also delighted that the Government yesterday published a consultation on reforming the Electronic Communications Code. Again, I was the Minister who had a first stab at that, which was obviously not good enough, and that is why we need a second bite at the cherry. I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that the foreword to that consultation document contains some heartening statistics on the deployment of gigabit broadband. From memory—I read it only this morning, but I am getting older—some 30% of homes can now potentially receive gigabit broadband. It is good to see the Government pressing ahead on another front.
I should say on operators entering multi-dwelling units that one of the Government’s commitments during the passage of the Bill was to publish a consultation on the code of practice and then a code following Royal Assent. Given that the Bill imposes obligations on landlords and effectively interferes with their property rights, it is vital that landlords are reassured that the operators will adhere to the highest possible standards. The code of practice is also important for some of the smaller operators. There is some nervousness among them. If landlords are worried about operators’ standards when deploying the technology, they will simply take refuge by dealing only with the biggest operators and not allow insurgents, as it were, or start-ups to fibre-up their buildings. I hope that when she responds the Minister can give some reassurance that the code of practice consultation will be issued imminently.
I should also point out that the Bill does not yet cover the issue of shared freeholds, and I hope that the consultation on the Electronic Communications Code, which I am not covers this issue, could be used as a vehicle for looking at how operators can enter buildings where there is a shared freehold—the typical building being a Victorian house that has been split into flats. Some 5 million premises fall within that category and there needs to be some way forward to allow operators to access shared freehold premises.
I am not sure whether the amendment is necessary in practice, but I understand the Government’s motivation to reassure Members of both Houses that the Bill will not inadvertently create monopolies in multi-dwelling units. I should also ask the Minister to respond, either now or in writing, to the concern of some operators about the Government and Ofcom’s ongoing intentions to impose wholesale access on operators. It is one thing to say that an operator should not do anything, intentionally or inadvertently, to prevent a competitor supplying technology to multi-dwelling units, but it is quite another to impose on a company the obligation to allow others to use the infrastructure it has invested in and paid for. What is the direction of travel of the Government and Ofcom, because I know that they have previously thought about imposing wholesale obligations on operators in multi-dwelling units?
However, as I say, I welcome the amendment. My understanding is that any attempt to physically impede competitors from entering a multi-dwelling unit would fall foul of the ATI regulations and, indeed, the EU’s Electronic Communications Code, so I am not entirely certain that the amendment is necessary. However, in the sense of providing statutory reassurance that a much- needed piece of legislation will open up access to ultrafast broadband to many millions of people living in multi-dwelling units the amendment has to be welcomed.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and to welcome him to the select band of broadband and telecoms legislation aficionados in this House. As my noble friend Lord Fox said, on Report we welcomed the principle of the previous amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, in respect of Part 4A code rights. Likewise, we welcome the Government’s Amendment 2 today.
Strangely enough, however, I do not think that the Government’s amendment is as good as the original, in terms of what the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, was trying to achieve. It substitutes an arguably unclear negative injunction for a positive duty, where it is clear what is intended. On these Benches, however, as my noble friend Lord Fox indicated, we understand the intention behind the amendment, but how it is interpreted when put into practice will be the test. As he also said, we have throughout been encouraged to hear of the development of open radio access networks and strongly support them.
As the noble Baroness mentioned in her letter to us, in the period between Report and today, we have seen the publication of the Government’s 5G diversification strategy. I see that now NEC acting as the systems integrator will be building a testbed for O-RAN funded by the DDCMS, the new O-RAN project. Will the Minister say when this will be up and running and is this the promised Smart RAN interoperability centre—SONIC—or a precursor to it?
What is the current status of the telecoms diversification task force and the National Telecoms Lab, and what is the status of international collaborations? When developed, these open RAN standards will provide operators with the flexibility to use different vendors and obviate the need to take out existing networks on a change of operator. By the same token, for the consumer it would mean likewise that they are not captive to any particular operator with their equipment. That is a development that we wholly welcome.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Government for their amendment. As other noble Lords have said, this was originally raised in the other place by the Labour Party and withdrawn. A similar amendment was tabled by myself and others, supported by the Liberal Democrats, and we had a good debate in Committee. It is important for the progress of the Bill as a whole that these points were picked up. It is very good that the Government have come back with a proposal. Although, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, the language is slightly different, the intention is clear and similar to what I wanted, because it deals with a real-life issue which could affect consumer choice. Despite the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, I would argue that it is pro-competition and will benefit to those involved in this process.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, raised some interesting points of detail and I look forward to the Minister’s response. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, raised some important wider points about the Bill’s narrow focus, which, of course, it cannot be blamed for, in the sense that it is what it is. It is about a particular issue which will unblock the current arrangements, in which non-responsive freeholders can hold back developments wished for by their tenants.
He also made some good points, which I hope we will not lose sight of as we look forward to further work from the Government on this issue: planning issues relating to the access required for new-generation technology; shared freeholders; questions about street works—how we synchronise them and make sure that they are effective; and the use of masts, particularly for 5G and other superstructure, which is not covered by this Bill but obviously needs wider consideration, perhaps in the next round of legislation.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, although a blizzard of other issues were raised in his short introduction, it is very good to have the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, with his extraordinary experience in this area, contributing to this debate. I hope he will keep on with his very focused questions. I am happy to support the amendment and look forward to the Government’s response.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
I have a request from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to ask a short question.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I think that might be from the previous group. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, is not in his place. He wanted to ask the Minister a question on the first group, but I think the message he sent was delayed in reaching the Woolsack electronically.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
I call the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank noble Lords who spoke in this short debate for their support and reflections. In response to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about “unnecessarily” and “nothing”—a level of detail of which your Lordships’ House can be proud—“unnecessarily” is included to allow for the possibility that there might be circumstances in which an operator may have to, by necessity, prevent or inhibit the provision of a service, such as a broadband connection by a subsequent operator. I am happy to put this in writing. Similarly, nothing done by the operator is a protection to make clear that an operator cannot hide behind exercising their Part 4A code right, to do something that would unnecessarily prevent or inhibit the provision of a connection by a subsequent operator.
The key point, as I said in my opening remarks, is that we will be setting out in secondary legislation the terms under which operators will be granted access rights. We have committed to consulting on those terms and it is of the utmost importance that we get that right. The noble Lord also asked how this will impact on real life and the tenant—another important question. A customer can always request an operator of their choice; nothing has changed in the legislation. Nothing in the Bill prevents a second operator requesting code rights from a landlord.
Turning to the noble Lord’s questions about the Government’s ambition in this area, I thank my noble friend Lord Vaizey for highlighting the important progress we have made. The Government are working hard with industry to target a minimum of 85% gigabit-capable coverage by 2025, but will seek to accelerate rollout further to get to 100% as soon as possible We have committed £5 billion to support the delivery of gigabit-capable connections to the hardest-to-reach locations in the country.
My noble friend Lord Vaizey and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, referred to the further progress needed to facilitate the rollout and welcomed the new consultation on the electronic communications code, which was announced yesterday. We are seeking advice and guidance on a number of potential changes, including addressing unresponsive landowners outside multi-dwelling building environments—a subject debated by your Lordships in earlier stages of the Bill—and supporting operators and landowners to reach mutual agreement that facilitates the deployment of gigabit-capable networks. While the consultation does not propose specific reforms, it sets out a range of possible measures to tackle the issues raised with us about the current code. These include the time it takes for agreements to be completed, the confusion about upgrading and sharing rights, the lack of consistency in the treatment of entirely new agreements and the renewal of expired agreements.
My noble friend Lord Vaizey asked some very particular questions, including about the imposition of obligations on companies to allow others to use their infrastructure. If I may, I will write to my noble friend to clarify those points.
In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked a “blizzard” of questions about diversification. Our diversification strategy was published on 30 November. We were very clear in it that we seek to create a much healthier supply market that is open, flexible and diverse. We have backed that initially with £250 million of investment. In relation to the noble Lord’s other points, I hope I may write to him.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, as noble Lords will be aware, this piece of legislation, though short in length, has taken many months to reach this stage and has sparked impassioned debate from all sides of this House. It is a Bill that will benefit huge numbers of people, and I appreciate the dedication with which your Lordships have scrutinised it. Our debate and your Lordships’ questioning have exposed important global issues, particularly in relation to human rights, and no one watching the passage of this Bill could doubt the rigour of your Lordships’ scrutiny.
I am particularly grateful for the openness and co-operation shown by Members on the Front Benches opposite: the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson, Lord Livermore, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Fox. I must of course mention the noble Lord, Lord Alton, from whom I have learned much in our conversations during the passage of the Bill. He has shone a light on some terrible human rights abuses. I also thank his co-signatories: my noble friend Lord Forsyth, the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.
I will take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on his appointment to your Lordships’ Communications and Digital Committee. I thank him for his generous advice behind the scenes and his friendly challenge in the Chamber. I will miss seeing him opposite me, virtually or physically, but look forward to working with his successor.
I am pleased with the shape in which the Bill leaves the House. Once it comes into force, it will ensure that those living in apartments and blocks of flats are supported in accessing fast, reliable and resilient connectivity. I do not need to remind your Lordships how important that is.
Finally, I take the opportunity to thank the Bill team and officials across government who have worked tirelessly and very patiently with this Minister to deliver this important piece of policy. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her kind words. We have enjoyed working with her over this period. The Bill has been an exemplary one in terms of making sure that the House is able to do its job and that the processes necessary to make it fit for legislation once it leaves Parliament are carried out in the best way. That can be done only if there is a spirit of mutual support and trust, and we certainly had that.
I actually took this Bill over at a relatively late stage. Most of the heavy lifting was done initially by my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, and the show was kept on the road by Dan Stevens, our legislative assistant, whose skills and expertise I have drawn on mercilessly. I join the Minister in thanking members of the Bill team, who made themselves very much available and answered our detailed questions in the private meetings that we had.
This is a small but important Bill. As the Minister said, it will affect a lot of people; it will make their lives better and give them access to what has become a utility necessary for modern living. It has been scrutinised carefully in this House, and I am confident that it will play a part in helping to achieve a gigabit-enabled economy across the whole country—something that we need as soon as possible. There remains a lot to do, as we picked up today, but it is good to hear that the consultations on the remaining issues are taking place, particularly on the rollout of 5G and the development of fibre to the home. I urge the department to up its game on this and on a number of other issues that we talked about, and I will be watching from the sidelines.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]
My Lords, I doubt very much whether the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, could ever possibly watch from the sidelines—but that is an aside.
After an unusually long gap between Report and Third Reading, we are sending the Bill back to the Commons in much better shape than when it arrived. It is still, however, a modest Bill with much to be modest about, to coin a phrase. We on these Benches have never thought that it was adequate in itself to deliver the ambition of one-gigabit-per-second broadband capability by 2025, and of course the goalposts themselves have now been moved by the Government. However, we now have the consultation on changes to the Electronic Communications Code, which is a step forward. I do hope that the Government will see the wisdom of retaining the review mechanism of the code in Clause 3, which the House inserted on Report, which can assess after that what other measures might be needed. We on these Benches will continue to press the Government on their electoral promises.
We also stressed during the passage of the Bill that we would like to see broadband treated as a utility, as with gas, water and electricity, with all the necessary and equivalent rights of entry. The last year could not have demonstrated more graphically the essential nature of good broadband to all our lives, alongside, if not ahead of, all those other utilities. We on these Benches advocate strongly for the universal service obligation to be raised to 25 or 30 megabits per second—that is, superfast levels—which should be treated as the minimum for these rural areas.
That said, I thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, together with her Bill team, as ever, for their very good nature. I also thank her for her kind words, good nature and patience with us all throughout the Bill and for her willingness to listen, even if she did not always accept our arguments. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his collaboration and co-operation during the course of the Bill, which showed how we always achieve better results by cross-party working.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for raising some extremely important questions with reference to human rights abuses and modern slavery. His campaigning has clearly changed the Government’s approach and, despite what the Minister has said, it might become even more relevant in the context of the Telecommunications (Security) Bill, which, as we have heard, will come to this House shortly. Of course, the acid test will come next Tuesday on the Trade Bill ping-pong. This is of great significance in terms of the relationship between human rights and trade as a whole. Like him and many other noble Lords, I urge the Government to reconsider their position ahead of that vote.
Lastly, I thank Sarah Pughe in our whips’ office for her valuable help, and my noble friends Lord Fox and Lady Northover, who have contributed so knowledgeably throughout on different aspects of the Bill that they have given me a very easy run when leading on it.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a privilege to make the concluding speech for the Cross Benches on this Bill today. I place on record our thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the Bill team, who have been so ready to engage with our concerns, albeit to limited avail in the end.
It was the late Robin Cook who, as Foreign Secretary, first set out a framework for the UK to have an ethical foreign policy in 1997. Given where the UK is now—debating sanctions only an hour ago against Russia in defence of human rights and democracy, standing up for the rights of people in Hong Kong and shortly to be in the process of discussing the National Security and Investment Bill—I think he would have been pleased with the progress made in the intervening period, not least with our efforts to prevent Chinese commercial enterprises, under the control of that country’s national security laws, from participating in egregious human rights violations and cashing in their profits in this country.
I first spoke to my amendment preventing firms that are a security threat operating our critical national infrastructure on 19 May 2020 in Committee on this Bill. In the intervening eight months and numerous debates, it was never my intention—and I think I speak for all other noble Lords who have led this charge; the noble Lords, Lord Alton, Lord Forsyth and Lord Adonis, joined by the Front-Bench speakers of the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party—to prevent the necessary tools needed to roll out broadband to those who need it. Our concerns were well grounded and have, regrettably, come to pass as more information on the treatment of Chinese Uighurs comes to light.
It is also the co-operation between the House of Lords and the other place, so ably led by my noble friend Lord Alton, on these numerous amendments that has allowed us to help the Government to think through where the balance lies in relation to commerce and complicity in human rights abuses that has helped us reach this place today with our amendments. It is now for the other place to decide where that balance lies. I wish the Bill well.
Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL]
Thursday 28th January 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL] 2019-21 View all Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL] 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 98-I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Report - (18 Jan 2021)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
In moving that the Bill do now pass, I shall make some brief observations and reflect on its passage. At the outset, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for his patience, focus and good humour in scrutinising the Bill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for her very valued input. I also thank the cadre of noble Lords who showed a particular interest in this very important Bill and shared so much of their experience and wisdom in scrutinising it. Contributions and questions from all sides were thorough and searching. We listened to concerns and made changes where needed, and we have a better Bill for it.
The Bill has had a rather longer gestation than I would have liked, but that was to be expected in the circumstances. Having been introduced to your Lordships’ House in January 2020, it entered an unprecedented period which has thrown numerous challenges at the Bill and, of course, the aviation industry. However, the Government are clear that the powers in the Bill remain critical, even in the current Covid-19 context. The need to modernise the UK’s airspace has not changed, and the Bill will help reduce aircraft noise, reduce traffic delays and support the aviation industry’s recovery and growth. Additionally, there are emissions savings from modernisation.
It has been 20 years since the establishment of an economic regulatory regime for the provision of en-route air traffic control services. The Bill will modernise regulatory provisions relating to air traffic services, provided by NATS (En Route) plc, or NERL, and regulated by the Civil Aviation Authority, ensuring that the framework remains fit for purpose and continues to build on the UK’s excellent safety record. Following Report, the Bill now also enables the Government to continue to provide alleviation from the requirement to use slots at co-ordinated airports 80% of the time for them to be retained. These powers will be temporary, until August 2024, and I thank all noble Lords for their constructive engagement on these amendments. It was far from ideal to bring these amendments to your Lordships’ House before Report; however, Covid-19 has provided many unexpected twists and turns.
Finally, the Bill will give the police new powers to enforce the existing law surrounding unmanned aircraft to ensure the skies above us are safe without damaging the unmanned aircraft industry. There are, as ever, many people beyond your Lordships’ House who have helped shape the Bill—the CAA, NATS, the police and others across government—and, of course, we have a fantastic and more than a little patient Bill team who have had to shepherd the Bill through interesting times. I am very grateful for their hard work and persistence.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
Speaking for myself and my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, I take this opportunity to thank the Minister and all her officials and colleagues involved with the Bill for their willingness to have informal meetings to discuss, in an open and helpful way, a range of complex issues relating to the Bill as a whole and Parts 1 and 2 in particular. This has greatly contributed to effective scrutiny, needed technical amendments and useful clarifications and amplifications, including those read into Hansard by the—
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has been cut off, so we will proceed with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and return to the noble Lord if we can.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister and her officials for the time and patience they have devoted to explaining the Bill and, in particular, the many amendments. I am very grateful to them, as I am to the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Tunnicliffe, and all noble Lords who added their expertise to our debates.
This Bill is, I believe, the third recent attempt at aviation legislation. On Report, I called the Bill a bit of a mess: it is, indeed, an extraordinary saga, worthy of featuring in one of the excellent briefings we get from our Library about historic aspects of our proceedings. There can rarely have been a year between Committee and Report on a Bill, and certainly not a year of such momentous events. Covid and Brexit have both had a profound effect on aviation, and technological development meant that drone capability has greatly increased.
There are now three elements to the Bill; it started with only two. The modernisation of airspace seemed urgent a year ago—less so now that flights are at a fraction of previous numbers. However, concerns remain for airport operators about the conflict between the CAA’s new enforcement powers and other aspects of their role. There are concerns about the financial costs of modernisation at a time when airports have suffered severely financially, and concern about the requirement to release so-called spare airspace capacity for general aviation.
The wholly new section on slot waivers is a direct result of the pandemic and is welcome in order to avoid environmentally damaging ghost flights, but I remain concerned and hope that the Government will make sure that in future the rules are tightened to ensure fair competition and fair prices for consumers.
The section on unmanned aircraft has been subject to wholesale rewriting because of the changed legal situation. However, it is still far too narrow in scope, concentrating on new police powers rather than on the modern capabilities of drone technology and how drones should be used safely and effectively.
My amendment, which would have ensured a wholesale review, narrowly failed to secure a majority. However, I hope that the Minister and her colleagues will take that approach in the near future, because BALPA, our airports and airlines, as well as many drone manufacturers and commercial operators, believe that more is needed on this. The Bill now goes to the other place and I am sure that many Members there will pick up on the issues that I have referred to.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB) [V]
My Lords, from the Cross Benches, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, and the Bill team. I am grateful to have this opportunity to speak.
As others have pointed out, the Bill must have gained an entry in the Guinness book of records. It started life in your Lordships’ House with its First and Second Readings over a year ago. After Committee in early February, it sat month after Covid month in the pending tray, then, at the last minute, the Bill team had to drag it swiftly into a new framework—one created by that large amendment to ANO 2016 that took effect so close to Report. However much forewarned, it cannot have been a straightforward task to draft and present so faultlessly the plethora of government amendments required to bring the Bill up to date. That was a great effort that all should admire.
For the noble Baroness herself, it must have been a considerable challenge to master her brief on this complex subject so fully and comprehensively, and I pay tribute to her, too. I admit to having been something of a thorn in her side, but she willingly and courteously exchanged, both on and off the Floor, on our respective views. In her reply to my amendment on Report, she got one point spot on: she said that she suspected that I might not be reassured.
I expect the issue to resurface, but honest differences are the meat and drink of legislation. Given the complexity of this subject, the noble Baroness earns credit for her steady determination. When discussing drones a year ago in Committee, she said, referring to the future of manned and unmanned aircraft traffic management, that it would be
“a whole new world of pain.”—[Official Report, 10/2/20; col. 2111.]
I hope that the passage of the Bill has not been too painful for her. From the Cross Benches, I thank her and the Bill team for their efforts.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who I think is back in contact.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
I am afraid that I have little alternative but to start again from the beginning, because I do not know at what stage I got cut off, so I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for that.
Speaking both for myself and for my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, I take this opportunity to thank the Minister and all her officials and colleagues involved with the Bill for their helpful approach and willingness to have informal meetings to discuss in an open and constructive way a range of complex issues relating to the Bill as a whole and Parts 1 and 2 in particular. That has greatly contributed to effective scrutiny, needed amendments and useful clarifications and amplifications, including those read into Hansard by the Minister on Report. I know that my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe has been particularly appreciative of this way of working with the Minister and her team. It has undoubtedly resulted in a better Bill.
I also thank Ben Wood in our office for all his hard work, which has been of real value to me and to my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe on the Bill. Our thanks go, too, to all other Members of your Lordships’ House and outside organisations with whom we have worked, not least the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson.
As has been said, the Bill has not had the quickest of passages through the House. It started out in your Lordships’ House a year ago around the time when, as I remember it, I was temporarily out of action. It now goes to the other place for their consideration, and I am quite sure that the work that we have all done on the Bill will assist its passage through the Commons.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, once again, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I of course note the points raised and look forward to further debate in the coming months on matters relating to aviation and unmanned aircraft. With that, I think we are done: the Bill is clear for take-off.
Covid-19
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I always think that it is shame that we are not able to hear the Statements in the House first.
When I heard the Prime Minister’s Statement, I was struck by how quickly it moved on from reflecting on how we have got to this point straight to vaccinations and quarantine. Obviously, the focus must be on the future, but surely at every stage we need to reflect on what has gone before—both on the successes and on what we would do differently.
More than 100,000 people across the UK have died. That figure is chilling. Each death has been mourned, often in shock and despair. In the 11 weeks since 11 November, the number of deaths has been higher than in the previous eight months. So when the Prime Minister says that the most important thing that we can do to honour their memory is to persevere against the virus with even greater resolve, he is only partly right. It is the absolute minimum that we must do.
We agree that we must use the expertise, energy and commitment of every agency and resource of government to ensure that our lives can start to return to normal as soon as possible. But there are two other ways in which we must respect the memories of those who have died: first, by recognising and learning the lessons of past mistakes and, secondly, by preparing for the post-Covid economy and the society of the future.
Such a worldwide crisis is unprecedented. The scale and severity of the pandemic would be challenging for any Government. Britain is the first country in Europe to suffer 100,000 deaths, with one of the highest death rates in the world. Add to that the deepest recession of any major economy and the lowest growth, and we are on course for one of the slowest recoveries of any developed nation. We recognise that the Prime Minister is trying to manage competing pressures from those who want to put health first and those calling for restrictions to be lifted early because of the economic impact. However, as we have said so many times, these are not competing issues; it is impossible to have a healthy economy without a healthy population and we will not emerge from the economic crisis with a further hokey-cokey approach to lockdown, where we start too late, stop too early and then start all over again.
With so many across the UK struggling mentally, physically and economically, Boris Johnson should reflect on his reaction to those who raise questions and concerns, or offer advice. Early last month, Keir Starmer questioned the Prime Minister on whether the Government’s four-day window for lifting restrictions over the festive period was appropriate, with the R rate rising. In response, the Prime Minister shouted that Labour wanted to cancel Christmas, before bowing to the inevitable a few days later. Again, last month, when schools in some London boroughs sought to stop transmission by closing early, they were threatened with legal action—by a Government that then took that same course of action. The Prime Minister has never properly addressed the times when he has been too slow to accept the advice from SAGE. Even if it is a different viewpoint, which does not chime with his position at that time, Mr Johnson should consider the merits of the suggestions and comments put to him. We want, and we need, the Government to get this right. It is no exaggeration to say that lives, and livelihoods, depend on it.
The way out of this nightmare has now been provided by amazing scientists, our National Health Service, the Armed Forces, and hundreds of thousands of volunteers. The vaccine programme is making incredible progress—a truly national, and an unprecedented, effort. The Government are of course right to focus on the rollout. There will be problems and glitches, so transparency and clarity are critical to success, and I have three questions for the Minister on that point. Can she tell us how the Government are ensuring the even distribution of vaccines around the country? How are they working with local government and other public bodies to ensure efficient targeting and take-up, particularly in the priority groups? Can she also tell us how quickly, when best practice is identified, it is communicated elsewhere?
Reports today that cases are falling, but not fast enough to ease the pressures on the NHS, bring home just how important it is that the test and trace scheme is effective. At a cost of £22 billion and rising, we were promised a world-beating system, and we desperately need it to succeed. I still think it would be helpful to your Lordships’ House if the Government permitted the Minister’s colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, to answer questions in the House on test and trace. In her absence, I ask the Minister: given the failures of test and trace in the autumn, what lessons have been learned since?
The Minister will be aware, as I am, of the changes to counting methodology. An individual who tested positive, having come into contact with others, four of whom then tested positive, would previously have been counted as one identified contact, because that person was the contact who passed the disease on. Under the new counting rules, that individual will now be counted as four identified contacts. I do not understand the reasons for that. The figures may look better, but no additional people will have been contacted. Even the Government have admitted that this change will result in duplicate counting. Can she explain why the counting is being changed but the process is not? The Government have confessed to spending almost £1 million a day on private consultants for test and trace. Is this really the best they can come up with?
We desperately want schools to be safe, and we agree that this is complex. We will look at the details of the Education Secretary’s plans for the Covid support premium, including how it will be allocated to help children catch up on missed education. Can the Minister tell me how the Government are dealing with gaps in online provision? On the previous Statement, I asked her how many children still did not have adequate access; she replied about how many people did have access. Yes, I agree that that is impressive, but the immediate priority is those who do not. Can she answer that same question today, or write to me with the number, and about immediate plans?
The Prime Minister has suggested that some schools might return in early March. Can the Minister therefore comment on Labour’s proposal—echoed, incidentally, by both the Children’s Commissioner and the Conservative Chair of the Commons Education Committee, Robert Halfon—to use the window of the February half-term to vaccinate school staff and other key workers? With the weekends either side, there will be a clear 11 days in which that could be done. We must appreciate that, if it were done, it would have an impact on the initial plans for a rollout. This is part of my point about clarity and transparency. Ensuring that everyone knows and understands how, when and why the vaccine is being rolled out will reassure, and assist with public confidence.
Finally, we know very little about how the Government’s quarantine plans will work in practice, including who will be responsible for enforcing them and how. I listened to the Home Secretary’s Statement, and I have to say that it provided more questions than answers. So I have two questions for the Minister today. Given reports that only three in every 100 people quarantining are contacted, how is that figure being increased, and what agreements have been reached with the hotels that will be accommodating those quarantined? I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness’s answers, and I trust that, where she does not have full details, she will write.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, this Statement marks the most sombre milestone. One hundred thousand deaths is an horrific figure. Our hearts go out to the families of all those who have died and to all those who are currently suffering from the disease, either at home or in hospital. We must also pay tribute again to the staff in the NHS and in care homes, who are fighting the battle against Covid on a daily basis, often under the most extreme pressure.
On Monday, in announcing the 100,000 figure, the Prime Minister said that the Government “did everything we could”, since the pandemic struck, to minimise its impact. This simply is not true. Among the many things the Prime Minister chose not to do was to take SAGE’s advice, on 21 September, for a circuit-breaker of restrictions. Instead, he did nothing for three weeks and then introduced a watered-down version of what SAGE had recommended. Many people died as a result. I know it is a big ask, but I ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House to suggest to the Prime Minister that he would have more credibility in the future if he stopped misrepresenting his actions in the past.
I have not, until now, been a huge fan of the immediate initiation of an inquiry into the handling of the pandemic because I thought that all our efforts should now be going into fighting it. However, as the Government clearly do not believe that they have made any mistakes, despite all the evidence to the contrary, I can now see no other way in which a light can be shone on past failings to ensure that they are not repeated. When do the Government intend to make good on the Prime Minister’s commitment, some six months ago, that an inquiry should indeed be held?
Today’s Statement repeats some past mistakes. Most obviously, the restrictions on arrivals to the UK from 22 countries where there is a known variant of the disease are both too little and too late. The requirement to spend quarantine in a hotel is a good one; it has been extremely effective elsewhere—Australia, for example. But given the weakness of the policing of self-quarantining, it surely makes sense now for all arrivals in the UK to quarantine in a hotel. The measure is too little, and it is certainly too late. We should have been doing this months ago.
The Statement is understandably upbeat on the progress of the vaccination programme, and we congratulate all those who have worked so hard to develop the vaccine, and now to deliver it. But it is curiously silent on the other principal pillar of the fight against the virus—the track, trace and isolate system. That system may have become a bit more successful at tracking and tracing, but it remains very largely ineffective in persuading those who are asked to stay at home actually to do so.
The reason for that is undisputed. A large proportion of those affected simply cannot afford to take the time off work. The Government’s response so far, in terms of financial support, has been pathetically inadequate. We hear that arguments are still under way within government about what to do next. Given that they spent £22 billion on the track and trace system but peanuts on the isolate system, surely it is now time to introduce a system that makes up for people’s loss of earnings if it is to stand any chance of being successful. So when do the Government intend to announce a new compensation scheme that might actually work?
Looking forward to the easing of the lockdown, the Government say that nothing will happen for at least another six weeks. But they completely fail to set out the criteria against which they will make their decisions in mid-February. That failure has both practical and psychological costs: practical because nobody can begin to plan for the reopening, and psychological because all that people can see in front of them is a further long period of lockdown, with no clarity on the conditions that will allow its easing.
Why is it impossible to set thresholds of case numbers and hospital occupancy, above which restrictions will remain, but below which they might—not will, but might— be reduced? Why cannot the Government say in advance of mid-February how, and by what stages, the opening of schools and the economy as a whole will proceed? In that way, school leaders would be able to plan now for a resumption of normal classes and would not need a further two weeks while a decision was taken to open up. The idea that parents need two weeks’ notice for their children to go back to school is just nonsense; given the stress they are under, two days would be more than long enough.
Will the Government therefore bring forward the point at which they tell schools the basis on which they will reopen, whenever the actual reopening date proves to be? Will they equally signal to those businesses which are now unable to operate the triggers that will enable them to do so?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and noble Lord for their comments. Like them, my thoughts and sympathies are with every family that has tragically lost loved ones during this terrible pandemic.
The noble Baroness asked about working with local government. I assure her that we are working extremely closely with local government, and indeed many partners. This is a national endeavour, uniting local and national government, the NHS and many more. Over the past few months, we have recruited and trained a vaccination work force of 80,000, including retired clinicians, the Armed Forces, pharmacists and volunteers. Over 200,000 members of the public and businesses have offered non-clinical support and help with the logistics of the programme.
I can certainly assure both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that we are doing everything we can to roll this programme out as smoothly as possible. We are sharing data to ensure that priority groups around the country are receiving their vaccines as quickly as possible. We have vaccinated over 80% of the over 80s, and 75% of elderly care home residents. Vaccinations are now being offered to everyone over the age of 70.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about an investigation or inquiry into the handling of the pandemic. As the Prime Minister has said, we will turn to that, but at the moment I hope he understands that we have other priorities that we are working on.
The noble Baroness once again rightly asked about schools. We have bought 1.3 million devices and delivered over 870,000 to schools in England so far during the pandemic. We bought an additional 300,000 laptops and tablets this year, increasing our investment by another £100 million. We have spent over £400 million supporting disadvantaged children who need help with access to technology. I fully recognise that there are people who will fall, and currently are still falling, through the gaps, but we are working closely with our school partners around the country to try to make sure that all families and all children have access to the technology that they need.
The noble Baroness asked about vaccine prioritisation. It is an issue that many have rightly raised. I reiterate that the JCVI advises that the immediate priority for the vaccination programme should be to prevent deaths and protect healthcare staff, with old age deemed the biggest single factor determining mortality. That is why we are following the advice of the independent body. The top four priority groups account for 88% of Covid deaths.
I say to the noble Baroness that the ONS has looked at rates of death involving Covid in men and women who work as teaching and education professionals. They were not statistically significant when compared to the rates seen in the population among those of the same age and sex. I know that sounds slightly bureaucratic, but we are looking at the data and have taken advice from the JCVI. There is a reason for the prioritisation, although I entirely accept that there are many groups who would like to have the vaccine as soon as possible. That is why we are rolling out the programme as we are.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked about the international travel situation, as announced by the Home Secretary yesterday. The noble Baroness asked a number of questions. There will be further information and details set out next week, so I am afraid that I am not able to provide any additional information than that provided yesterday. But we will introduce a new managed isolation process in hotels for those who cannot be refused entry, including those arriving home from countries where an international travel ban has already been imposed. Further details about this policy will come next week—we are working as quickly as possible across government and industry to bring these measures in.
Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked about test and trace. We have contacted over 7 million people who may otherwise have spread the virus through the system, and we have reached 86.7% of those testing positive, so the system continues to work and improve.
The noble Lord asked about support for those self-isolating. As he will be well aware, there is a one-off £500 test and trace support payment, which helps those on low incomes who are self-isolating, and we have extended that until the end of March. In total, more than 4 million people could be eligible to receive this support payment. In addition to that, accepting that not everyone is covered by it, we have provided £25 million funding to local authorities to make discretionary payments to those facing financial hardship who are not eligible for the £500 scheme. We have also made statutory sick pay available from day one, while making emergency changes to reimburse small and medium-sized businesses with two weeks of sick pay per employee. Of course, we continue to support the lowest paid with a temporary universal credit uplift worth £1,000.
The noble Lord asked about our future plans. The reason why the Prime Minister set out the end of February as when we will return with a plan is that at this point we do not yet have the data on the impact of the vaccine rollout on case rates, hospitalisations and deaths, which will be vital in determining the timeline to releasing the measures. By mid-February, we will know much more about the effect of vaccines in preventing hospitalisation and deaths, using data from both the UK and nations such as Israel. We will know how successful the current restrictions have been in driving down infections and we will know how many people are still in hospital with Covid. We intend to look at all that data and information and will set out the results of that and publish our plan for taking the country out of lockdown when we announce that on the week of 22 February.
Our aim will be to set out a gradual and phased approach towards easing restrictions in a sustainable way, beginning as we have said with the reopening of schools, which is our national priority. We hope to commence the reopening of schools from 8 March with other economic and social restrictions being removed after that.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock)
We now come to the 30 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to the relevant interest in the register, which I have declared. I welcome the Prime Minister’s Statement yesterday and, in particular, the remarkable rollout of the vaccine which has, rightly, impressed so many. Would my noble friend accept, however, that, despite fully recognising what she said about the advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation—and of course we all accept the view that the most vulnerable people should be vaccinated first—there are particular claims from groups of people for priority for the vaccine that we should listen to? In particular, the police—although I accept there are many others—are on the front line, very often putting their own lives at risk. A view has been expressed by the Police Federation and others that the police service and in particular front-line officers should be recognised when it comes to decisions about who should be vaccinated next. Can my noble friend take that view to the relevant authorities?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con) [V]
I am grateful to my noble friend for setting out an eloquent case for the police, as indeed many others do for teachers and many of the other keyworkers who we have been so relying on, and we are so grateful for all their help and work during the pandemic. As he alluded to, I set out the fact that we are following the advice from the JCVI, and I am sure that it hears the strong cases that people put forward. I reassure my noble friend that the JCVI has considered evidence on the risk of exposure and mortality by occupation. Under the priority group’s advice, those over 50 years of age and all adults in a risk group would be eligible for a vaccination in the first phase of the programme. This prioritisation catches almost all preventable deaths from Covid, including those associated with occupational exposure to infection.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, following on from the question of the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, Public Health England has reported that people with learning disabilities are six times more likely to die of Covid, and those under the age of 35 with learning disabilities, 30 times more likely. They are at greater risk of transmission via peripatetic care staff and less likely to be able to understand and follow guidance on hand hygiene, social distancing and masks. Despite this, they are not recognised in the vaccination list; currently, they are in the sixth tier. Given that the Secretary of State has now accepted that he was not required to accept the JCVI advice on prioritisation, will the Government act swiftly to address this and give priority access to individuals with learning disabilities on an equal basis with other highly clinically vulnerable individuals?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con) [V]
The noble Baroness makes an eloquent case, but I have set out where we are with prioritisation. As we have said, the JCVI’s advice is clear that we should initially focus our efforts on those in care homes, health and social care workers, the elderly and the extremely vulnerable.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, the position for young people in school and education is mixed, with some students in poorer areas still not having access to online education and those in remote rural areas with not-spots simply not able to get online. Could the noble Baroness comment on the priority of trying to ensure that we move much more rapidly on the provision of broadband, particularly in those difficult areas? Secondly, we are going to have to do a big catch-up on educational standards and achievements, but it is important, at the same time, to look holistically at the spiritual, emotional and psychological work we are going to have to do with our young people. What plans are being made by Her Majesty’s Government?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con) [V]
The right reverend Prelate is absolutely right. While we are putting in support to help now, we recognise that the long-term damage caused by this extensive period in which young people and children have not been able to go to school is clear and significant. We have set out that we will work with parents, teachers, schools and colleges, and, I am sure, wider community representatives, to develop a longer-term plan to make sure that pupils have a chance to make up their learning over the course of the Parliament. While we of course have short-term schemes to attempt to address issues now—for instance, partnering with the UK’s leading mobile network operators to guarantee internet access and providing free data to key educational websites for disadvantaged families—there is a much longer-term issue that we want to address, and we will be doing that in partnership.
Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Prime Minister’s claim that the Government have done everything they could to minimise death and suffering during the pandemic has, tragically, been contradicted by the shameful figure of 100,000 deaths. The BAME community has suffered disproportionately. I have two questions for the noble Baroness. First, can she tell me what the take-up of the vaccine is among BAME communities? Secondly, what are the Government doing, with whom and to what effect, to maximise take-up? We are one of the richest countries in the world and we have one of the best health services; we should not have failed our poorest communities in the way we have.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con) [V]
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. We are still in the early days of collecting vaccination data, but the early data we have confirms that we need to work hard to make sure we get the vaccine take-up that we need. We will be looking to improve the data that we publish, although we are doing a lot already, to make sure we are aware of the issues she raises. I reassure her that we are cognisant of the need to encourage BAME communities. That is why, for instance, patient leaflets have been published in around 20 languages, as well in easy read and British Sign Language, and as audio advice. We are doing targeted advertising in 13 languages and holding regular meetings with local authorities and local faith leaders to encourage take-up. I do not know whether noble Lords have seen it, but there is an excellent video on social media with BAME MPs from across the House of Commons, highlighting the importance of taking the vaccine. These cross-party, cross-community initiatives are what we need to ensure that all our communities take up the vaccine.
Lord Scriven (LD) [V]
My Lords, countries that have managed this public health crisis best, with fewest deaths, least damage to their economies and young people being kept in education, have adopted “elimination of the virus” lockdown strategies. Can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House inform the House whether the lockdown exit plan criteria will be predicated on achieving elimination or suppression in the next phase of government policy for dealing with the virus?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con) [V]
As I said, we will be looking at all important data, which we will be publishing and reviewing so that we can then set out a strategy for leaving the lockdown. Our aim will be to set out a gradual and phased approach towards easing restrictions in a sustainable way. A sustainable way is critical, beginning, as I said, with the reopening of schools, which is our priority.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, when the Prime Minister says in his Statement that the UK has more than enough vaccines for this year, does he mean that we have sufficient vaccines on order or sufficient vaccines accessible to the NHS and the vaccines rollout programme? If we have only sufficient vaccines on order, and in view of the EU conflict and in particular the threat of the German Government to block exports of the Pfizer vaccine to the UK, can the noble Baroness guarantee that the most vulnerable groups will still have access to their second vaccinations within 12 weeks, as promised, and that the rollout of our first vaccinations can continue as planned?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con) [V]
I can certainly reassure the noble Baroness that we have total confidence in our supplies. We remain in close contact with all suppliers, and scheduled deliveries will fully support vaccination of our top four priority groups by mid-February, as intended. I can also confirm that individuals will receive their second dose, as it does provide better, long-lasting protection, as we planned.
Lord Cormack (Con) [V]
My Lords, this is not a time to play the blame game, and as my noble friend recognised in her opening words, it is a time to strive for national unity. To this end, would she not agree that all information on the pandemic should be shared on Privy Council terms with all opposition leaders, and that Sir Keir Starmer should be invited to meet the Prime Minister every week, both before and after Prime Minister’s Questions? That affair does not help to cement national unity.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con) [V]
I think the engagement between the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition is for them. I have been extremely heartened by the unity your Lordships have shown in presenting the importance of the vaccination programme and in raising important issues in the House during this. It is in that spirit that we will continue to work.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon. Lord Morris? I will move on. I call the noble Lord, Lord Storey
Lord Storey (LD) [V]
My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree to publish the written advice from NHS England and the Chief Medical and Scientific Officers that led to the letters issued by the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution to political parties and MPs about campaigning in the local elections? Will she request a statement from the Government’s law officers confirming the precise legal status of this advice? Could the noble Baroness tell the House whether this is her advice, the Government’s view, or part of the legally enforceable Covid regulations?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con) [V]
I will pass the noble Lord’s question to the relevant Minister.
Baroness Buscombe (Con) [V]
My Lords, clinically extremely vulnerable shielding patients below the age of 70 who receive some private healthcare are not being given any priority to receive the vaccine, despite their critical condition. They are told by despondent clinicians and their NHS-registered GP surgeries that they must wait in the queue for their age category. I am sure there is no intention to discriminate against these incredibly ill patients. Could my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal ask the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation to address this critical issue as a matter of urgency?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con) [V]
Many noble Lords’ contributions have shown how difficult this issue is. So many groups and individuals rightly have a claim to prioritisation of the vaccine, which is why we have been following the advice of the JCVI, which has taken all these issues into account and come up with its prioritisation list. Most importantly, that is why we are rolling out our vaccination programme as quickly and effectively as we can, so that we can reach the largest number of people as quickly as possible during this endeavour.
Lord Loomba (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Covid-19 pandemic has so far taken the lives of over 100,000 people. Businesses small and large have collapsed or are on their knees, 800,000 fewer people are in employment, and millions more remain furloughed. Would the noble Baroness the Leader of the House agree that the Government should have used the experience of other countries to improve its approach, to save lives while protecting the economy?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con) [V]
We have in fact put in place one of the world’s most comprehensive economic packages in response to the pandemic, spending over £280 billion on support so far. That is absolutely not to diminish the situation that many people have found themselves in, or to question the hardship that many have faced, but we have put an extremely generous package in place. We have continued to review and refine it as and when it has been necessary. I also remind the noble Lord that we have protected more than 12 million jobs through the furlough and self-employment schemes, both of which have been extended until April.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the question from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, showed that we currently suffer from an immature system of national leadership. I spoke earlier today with a year 8 pupil. She wants to get back to school. She said she did not feel that schools would be safe at present, and that she wants a staggered return, announced as soon as possible after 8 March. She also thought that support for the staff to be vaccinated was a good idea. Is she being sensible?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con) [V]
She sounds like an extremely sensible young lady to me. I hope that the noble Lord reassured her that the issue we face with school closures is not that schools are unsafe for pupils or teachers. The problem is that the new variant is so pervasive that we need to use every lever at our disposal to reduce all contacts outside households, wherever possible, to reduce the pressure on the NHS. I am sure she will be aware that her teachers will, I have no doubt, have implemented a lot of protective measures to ensure that children who can still attend school are safe. Perhaps he might also like to let the young lady know that we are offering biweekly asymptomatic testing for all secondary school and primary school staff. Over 90% of secondary schools and colleges have now registered for this testing.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD) [V]
My Lords, we can probably all agree that sending pupils back to school on the Monday and keeping them home from Tuesday was not a wonderful situation to put schools, pupils and families in. The Government are clearly trying to give some indication of a timescale well ahead this time, which is welcome, but as a single parent of three boys, who are here at home with me now, it is evidently the case that parents and schools need good notice. There also needs to be some understanding of the pressures on parents. What does a phased return mean? Will it mean one child stays at home while a parent drives the other to school? How will it be managed? Is it regional? The more notice that can be given, the more arrangements can be made at school and at home to make this work. I hope the Government will continue to work to give the earliest possible indication of how schools will be brought back to functioning.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con) [V]
The noble Lord speaks on behalf of parents throughout the country. He is absolutely right that, when we do start to re-open schools, we want to ensure that will be sustainable. That is why we have taken the difficult decision, in the light of the current data and the current situation, to say that we will not be able to open school immediately after the February half term. He will also know that we have promised to give at least two weeks’ notice to schools, colleges and universities of when they can return to face-to-face teaching to do exactly as he says: to allow student, staff and parents to prepare.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lord, I really must press the Minister to reconsider her scant response to the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, on the pressing need of those with learning difficulties. Does she not understand the desperate challenges facing these people’s families and carers? I beseech her to think again and, in doing so, I declare my interest—[Inaudible.]
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con) [V]
I entirely understand the points that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness made. I am sorry if he felt that I had not responded properly, but I have reiterated in answer to a number of noble Lords that many individuals and groups throughout the country would love to get a vaccine, and quickly. All I was trying to do was to explain that we are following the independent JCVI advice. I hope that I have set out the reasons for that, albeit while entirely acknowledging that many noble Lords feel that there are other very worthy groups, which I would not question.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, I had wanted to speak from personal experience, since, as someone aged over 80, I have been very satisfied: I have been given both of the injections and I think well of them. However, I will ask the Minister about the plans to impose hotel quarantine on travellers from 12 countries with new Covid variants. As an Australian, I know that Australia has been using this system for quite a long time. It has a high profile at the moment because the Australian Open tennis players are in hotel quarantine. How can we be certain that travellers will not seek to hide their country of travel origin by routing through other countries to avoid restrictions and costs? In addition, how effective is it to ask all other travellers to quarantine for 10 days after arriving when my noble friend Lady Harding tells us that track and trace reports that only 60% of people isolate when asked to do so? Should all travellers be made to quarantine in hotels?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con) [V]
People from any country have to fill out a passenger locator form, on which they have to declare which countries they have previously visited. Any traveller coming into the country would have to fill that out, so we will know who has visited the red countries, even if that was not the immediate place they travelled in from. We can therefore make sure that they go to a hotel. I am sure that my noble friend would be interested to know that failing to provide information accurately on a passenger locator form is an offense and can lead to a £500 fine. As I said in my opening remarks, more details about how this scheme will work will be set out next week.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, Covid is rampaging through our hospitals, but some eligible in-patients are not receiving the vaccination. That ensures that infection continues to rise in some hospitals. It also seems that the latest strain is behaving differently in relation to unborn babies. In the early stages of this virus, pregnant women might contract the virus, but their babies did not. This time it seems that the babies, too, are at risk. Could the Minister answer two questions? First, what is the policy on vaccinating elderly and vulnerable patients in hospital for other reasons? Secondly, when will the Government consider reversing the policy on vaccinating pregnant women, which was arrived at before this strain arrived?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con) [V]
I can assure my noble friend that new data around the impact of the new strain is being continually looked at and a lot of work is going on to survey and understand the new variants. That will feed into any advice or information, or decisions made. I can only reiterate to my noble friend what I said in answer to a number of noble Lords: we are following the advice of independent experts on which groups to prioritise for vaccines. The advice has been clear: we should focus our initial efforts on those in care homes, health and care workers, the elderly and the extremely vulnerable. I reiterate again that these top four priority groups have accounted for 88% of Covid deaths.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will follow on from the question of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. We know from the Office for National Statistics that only half of households earning between £6,000 and £10,000 have internet access, compared with 99% of households with an income of more than £40,000. How will the Government ensure that the £300 million of catch-up and tutoring money will be targeted in areas where there are high levels of digital poverty and will go directly towards the pupils who have suffered disproportionately because of deprivation the high rates of infection and isolation that have kept them off school?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con) [V]
I can reassure the noble Baroness that we will be targeting this money towards the very pupils she talks about. Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced that we will provide a further £300 million for tutoring. We will work in collaboration with the education sector to develop specific initiatives for summer schools and a Covid premium to support catch-up in exactly the way she said.
I refer back to the longer-term plan I mentioned. We understand that, while help is needed immediately, this situation is not going to be fixed quickly. Our pupils have lost a lot of time by being out of school and we want a longer-term plan, looking across the Parliament at how we can make sure we help pupils across the country to catch up as they have lost so much over the past few months.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
Throughout the Covid pandemic, the Government have supported the bus and rail industries. There are long outstanding appraisals of both industries, a national bus strategy and a White Paper on railway reform. As both are key components in combating climate change, can the Leader of the House please inform the House of when the publication of these documents may be expected?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con) [V]
I am sure the department continues to work on these issues. They are very important, but I am afraid I cannot give an update on publication.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend and the Government on the vaccination programme and for sticking to the advice of the JBC. It is vital for people to have confidence in the integrity of the vaccination programme. Does my noble friend share my concern about the South African mutation? If this was a seasonal variation, it would respond to the heat and climate of South Africa at this time of year, so it is deeply disturbing. What research is going into this variation at this time to ensure that it can be defeated and managed at the earliest opportunity?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con) [V]
I assure my noble friend that much work is going on in our scientific community to analyse the new variants. As she will know, the UK has one of the most extensive genomic sequencing capabilities in the world. We have offered a new variant assessment platform to work with the WHO to offer our expertise in genomic sequencing to other countries. Indeed, we have sequenced over half of all viral Covid genomes that have been submitted to the global database. I assure her that we are at the forefront of work on these variants.
The one thing that I hope will give her some comfort is that all the current evidence continues to show that both vaccines we are currently using remain effective against both UK and South African variants. Moderna has said that it expects its vaccine to protect against the South African variant as well. It has also said that the reduction in antibody levels suggests that immunity could wane more rapidly, so Moderna is having a further look at its vaccine. That shows how much work is going on, both within the companies developing vaccines and more broadly, to make sure we stay ahead of these new variants.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
I will follow on from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Newby. Perhaps the greatest area of government failure, although there is tragically lots of competition, is the failure to provide sufficient support to the infected and exposed who cannot self-isolate. Given that the Government are finally looking to set up quarantine hotels for overseas arrivals, will they consider a similar programme for those such as families forced into over- crowded accommodation by the bedroom tax, who cannot self-isolate in their current accommodation?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con) [V]
I am not aware of any plans in that area, but I am happy to pass on the comments made by the noble Baroness about other things we might look at to the relevant departments.
Lord Framlingham (Con) [V]
My Lords, while congratulating the Government on their amazing achievement in rolling out the vaccine so rapidly, I urge the Minister to do all she can to ensure that the new mass vaccination centres do not operate to the detriment of traditional GP practices. Their patients’ needs are the same as everyone else’s and they frequently live in remote rural areas.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con) [V]
I can certainly—[Inaudible.] Sorry, I seem to be having a battle with my unmute button. I can certainly assure my noble friend that that will not be the case. I hope I can assure him that more than 2,000 vaccination sites are now set up and 96% of the population in England live within 10 miles of a vaccination site. We are incredibly grateful to the GP surgeries, pharmacies and everyone helping to roll out the programme. I would like to mention, as the noble Lord did, the mass vaccination sites. They are operating from 8 am to 8 pm, but across our communities we have lots of ways in which people can access the vaccination. They can do so in the way most appropriate and easiest for them.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allocated for questions has now elapsed, so I am unable to call any more.
Financial Services Bill
Thursday 28th January 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Financial Services Bill 2019-21 View all Financial Services Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 13 January 2021 - (13 Jan 2021)
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office and the Treasury (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, as set out in the register of interests, I declare shareholdings in Close Brothers, Hampden & Co and Ovington Investments—the last of which I have significant control over.
The financial services sector drives growth and generates millions of jobs in every corner of our country. It has secured our reputation as a dynamic and world-leading financial centre and it contributes vast sums to the public purse—money that has helped this Government support millions of individuals and business through the pandemic.
Now that we have left the European Union and begin our recovery from Covid-19, we commence a new chapter in the sector’s story. As the Chancellor set out in his wider vision for the UK’s financial services sector in November, we remain committed to ensuring that the UK maintains the highest regulatory standards and remains an open and dynamic global financial centre. This is even more important now that we have left the European Union. Having left, the UK must assume full responsibility for its financial services regulation. The Economic Secretary has assured the other place—as I can assure noble Lords—that this will be underpinned by an unwavering commitment to high-quality, agile and responsive regulation, with a focus on safe and stable markets.
There will inevitably be some areas where the UK will take an approach which better suits our markets. To capitalise on this opportunity, we will fundamentally review our financial services regulatory framework to ensure that it is fit for the future. A consultation on this is open as we speak. The Financial Services Bill should, therefore, be understood as a key part of a wider process—the important first step in taking back control of our financial services regulation. It does so in a way that delivers our international commitments, is consistent with the highest standards of regulation and provides certainty and clarity for this important sector.
The Bill has three overarching objectives: first, to enhance the UK’s world-leading prudential standards; secondly, to promote openness to international markets; and, thirdly, to maintain the effectiveness of the financial services regulatory framework and sound capital markets. I will briefly set out each of the Bill’s measures, and how they contribute to these objectives. Much of the content is highly technical. I will do my best to explain each measure, but we have provided detailed explanations of each measure in the Explanatory Notes.
The Bill intends to enhance the UK’s world-leading prudential standards and to protect financial stability. Clauses 1 and 2, together with Schedules 1 and 2, empower the Financial Conduct Authority—the FCA—to create a tailored prudential regime for investment firms. Investment firms are currently part of the same prudential regime as banks, even though they do not typically provide banking services and therefore do not pose the same risks to financial stability. This Bill will allow the FCA to set prudential requirements which are more appropriate for investment firms. The reforms are similar to changes being taken forward in the EU, which the UK strongly supported while we remained a member.
The UK’s financial services regulators have the technical expertise and market understanding necessary to set complex rules for firms. I thank the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its work in scrutinising the Bill’s approach to the delegation of powers and welcome its conclusion that there was nothing necessary to draw to the attention of the House.
The regulators will also be guided by the statutory objectives established in the Financial Services and Markets Act. Their independence ensures that they will not be swayed by political considerations. This Bill introduces a new accountability framework. It will require the FCA to consider the most significant public policy issues relevant to the regime, including the UK’s international competitiveness, and publicly report on how consideration of these factors has affected its rules. In addition to the existing accountability mechanisms in the Financial Services and Markets Act, this will allow Parliament to scrutinise the work of the regulators.
This approach aligns with suggestions made by the EU Financial Affairs Sub-Committee to the Chancellor in March last year, when it recommended giving the UK’s regulatory regime more flexibility. However, I can reassure noble Lords that systemically important investment firms and all banks will remain subject to internationally agreed prudential standards, namely the Basel banking standards. Clauses 3 to 7, along with Schedules 3 and 4, will enable the prudential regulatory regime for these firms to be updated in line with the latest Basel standards, endorsed by the G20. This will build on the existing regime and increase the UK’s resilience to economic shocks, meeting our international commitments to protect the global financial system. In a similar way to the prudential regime for investment firms, responsibility for making the detailed firm-facing rules will be delegated, in this case to the Prudential Regulation Authority. This will also be subject to a new accountability framework.
As noble Lords will be aware, promoting financial stability goes wider than prudential regulation. The Libor benchmark is referenced in upwards of $400 trillion-worth of contracts across the financial system and beyond—from complex derivatives to household mortgages. I am sure that noble Lords will recall the Libor scandal of 2012, which saw many banks attempt to manipulate the Libor benchmark for their own gain. Since then, significant improvements have been made to the administration of the Libor benchmark by its administrator, and to the regulation of benchmarks in the UK. This is in part due to the important work of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, which includes a number of Members of this House.
The Financial Stability Board—the international body that monitors the health of global financial markets—has made it clear that the continued use of certain interest rate benchmarks such as Libor represents a potentially serious source of systemic risk. The decline of the inter-bank lending market has meant that Libor and other similar benchmarks are increasingly reliant on the judgments of panel banks, rather than on actual transactions. The FCA’s voluntary agreement with the Libor panel banks, requiring them to continue contributing to the benchmark, so preventing the premature collapse of Libor, will expire at the end of this year. After this point, there is a risk that Libor will become unrepresentative, which may cause disruption. Clauses 8 to 19, and Clause 21, along with Schedule 5, give the FCA the powers it needs to oversee the orderly wind-down of critical benchmarks—including Libor—thereby reducing significant risks to market stability. This includes powers to provide for the continuity of Libor for those contracts which are unable to transition away from it. Alongside this, clause 20 will extend the transitional period for benchmarks with non-UK administrators from the end of 2022 to the end of 2025.
I turn to the Bill’s second objective: to promote openness to overseas markets. Clauses 22 and 23, together with Schedules 6 to 8, establish a framework to provide and effectively maintain long-term market access between the UK and Gibraltar for financial services firms, now that we have both left the EU. This delivers on a ministerial commitment made to Gibraltar and recognises our special, historic relationship. The arrangements will preserve Gibraltar’s regulatory autonomy and enable it to choose where it wishes to access the UK market, on a basis of alignment and co-operation.
Clauses 24 to 26, together with Schedule 9, simplify the process under which overseas investment funds obtain permission to be marketed in the UK. These changes will supplement the current regime, which requires the FCA to assess every individual fund. The changes will introduce a system under which the Treasury can determine whether a specific category of funds from another country has equivalent regulatory standards to those in the UK. This means that funds in this group wishing to market in the UK can undergo a simpler process, due to the confidence provided by the equivalent regulatory standards of their home country. This will increase choice for UK investors and maintain the UK’s position as a centre of asset management. The current regime will remain in place for overseas funds located in countries which have not been found equivalent. Clause 27 and Schedule 10 amend markets in financial instruments regulations to update the equivalence provisions for investment firms based outside the UK.
The Bill’s third objective is to maintain the effectiveness of the financial services regulatory framework and sound capital markets. Clause 28 introduces a streamlined process for the FCA to remove an inactive firm’s authorisation and position on the public register. This will improve the accuracy of the register and reduce the risk of fraud. Clause 29 will make small changes to market abuse regulations to make the regime more effective while reducing some of the administrative burden on firms. Clause 30 raises the maximum sentence for criminal market abuse from seven to 10 years, bringing it into line with other economic crimes.
I would like to pause at Clauses 31 and 32, along with Schedule 12. These clauses were added by the Government by amendment in the other place.
It has recently become clear that some provisions in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 are creating challenges for some e-money institutions and payment institutions, such as Revolut, Worldpay and TransferWise. They currently need to submit a defence against money laundering request to the National Crime Agency to seek consent before proceeding with any transaction where there is suspicion of money laundering, however small. Standard banks do not have this administrative burden. In certain circumstances they are exempt from submitting a request for transactions under £250.
The £250 threshold exemption was originally introduced to allow those with frozen accounts to pay for their day-to-day living expenses. While the transactions may be under suspicion, these low-value reports provide little useful information for law enforcement, so processing them is not a good use of resources. E-money and payment institutions must submit a large number of these requests for low-value transactions. This is burdensome and, again, a poor use of law enforcement’s time and resources. This Bill therefore equalises the treatment of banks and payment and e-money institutions in this respect. Importantly, e-money and payment institutions will still be required to submit reports of suspicious activity to law enforcement.
Similarly, we have expanded the scope of account freezing and forfeiture powers in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 to include accounts held at payment and e-money institutions. This will ensure that law enforcement agencies are able to quickly and effectively freeze, and activate forfeiture of, the proceeds of crime and terrorist property when held in payment and e-money institution accounts; this mirrors their existing powers with banks.
Clause 33 will ensure the continuation of existing powers assigned to HMRC to access information on who really owns and benefits from overseas trusts with links to the UK. The Government are also taking proportionate and effective action elsewhere to prevent the misuse of these trusts, including recent changes expanding the requirement for non-UK trusts to register with the HMRC trust registration service.
The Bill underlines the Government’s commitment to helping people in debt rebuild their finances. Clause 34 gives the Government the full range of powers they need to effectively implement statutory debt repayment plans, part of the Government’s breathing space debt respite scheme. These changes will mean creditors can be compelled to accept different repayment terms. They will also allow for the administration of the scheme and repayment plans to be funded by a charging mechanism and will allow debts owed to the Government to be included in a statutory debt repayment plan. This will support the Government’s work to ensure that those in problem debt can make repayments to a manageable timetable.
Clause 35 relates to the Help to Save scheme, which supports those on low incomes to build up savings. Help to Save accounts have a four-year term, during which the Government pay a bonus of 50% on up to £50 of monthly savings. At the end of the four years, customers will be asked to provide instructions about where they want their savings transferred to. This clause gives the Government the power to introduce successor accounts for Help to Save customers who do not provide instructions in future, where this is necessary. For now, the Government propose to support these disengaged customers by transferring their savings into the same account where the bonus has been paid, reuniting these customers with their savings.
Clause 36 makes amendments to the packaged retail and insurance-based investment products regulation, known as the PRIIPS regulation. This EU regulation has been widely criticised for its potential to mislead consumers. The Bill will allow the FCA to clarify the scope of the regulation, addressing significant uncertainty that exists now, along with some other helpful changes.
Clause 37 finalises reforms to the European market infrastructure regulation, which the UK supported as a member state. Clause 38 confirms the legal effectiveness of the financial collateral arrangements regulations and makes associated amendments to the Banking Act 2009. Finally, Clause 39 will make the appointment of the chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority subject to a fixed five-year term, able to be renewed once. This is in line with other high-profile roles in the financial services regulation field.
In summary, this Bill is a necessary and important step in ensuring that our financial services regulatory framework delivers for the UK now that we have left the European Union and the transition period is over. It forms part of a wider programme of regulatory reform that will be guided by what is right for the UK’s financial services industry. It will support economic prosperity across the country, ensure financial stability, market integrity and consumer protection. It will ensure that the UK remains a world-class financial centre. I beg to move.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his remarks. I do not oppose the principle behind the Bill, because, like all noble Lords, no doubt, I recognise the need for post-Brexit stability in financial regulation. The Bill is a mass of detail and the Minister has gone to some lengths to go through it. I confess that it does remind me somewhat of a Christmas tree, with little packages all over the place, some of them no doubt previously stored in various government departments—particularly the Treasury —waiting for an appropriate legislative tree on which to hang them.
Leaving that aside, the Bill occurs, as the Minister said, at an important moment for the country’s economy and our financial services industry. As the Minister in the Commons said:
“Our financial services sector is critical to our national effort to recover from the impacts of Covid-19 and move towards a resilient, open and sustainable future for the UK economy.” [Official Report, Commons, 13/1/2; col. 357.]
I agree with that, but he stressed the pandemic and we all know that it is more than just a response to Covid. As the Minister said, the Bill is an essential part of the effort to improve the UK’s regulatory framework for financial services following the end of the Brexit transition period.
As regards our future post-Brexit development, only time will tell, but the early signs do not augur well. Only this month, we approved the post-Brexit trade and co-operation agreement, but, for financial services, this is basically a no-deal agreement. Within a few days of the agreement, £6 billion-worth of euro- denominated share trading shifted from London to European exchanges.
Of course, the express intention of the Government is to secure a memorandum of understanding on financial services by March, and the ambition for regulatory alignment where appropriate. We should have no illusions how difficult that might prove. Only this week, the noble Lord, Lord Hill, a former EU Financial Services Commissioner and a former Minister leading the Government’s review into the City, has confirmed what many of us have long known. He warned that Brussels is targeting London’s position as a global financial services centre and predicted that the EU will not grant British-based firms the highly prized access they are seeking to the European market. It was not in Brussels’ interests, he said, to allow London to continue to dominate the European financial market in the way it did before Brexit. He continued:
“Given that their strategy is to build up the EU, why on earth would they?”
Why, indeed? We should not be surprised then that, so far as we now know, Brussels has granted the UK time-limited equivalence on only two of the roughly 40 different financial areas where London is seeking market access. The EU has, of course, given no further indication on when it will take more equivalence decisions.
I am afraid that the way the Government approached the Brexit negotiations means that there is now no incentive for the EU to agree equivalence arrangements, because their absence means jobs and trading formerly done in London migrating to the EU. Why do I mention this? Herein lies the paradox: the Bill is part of a process aimed at increasing our competitive edge, including vis-à-vis the European Union, but in our present, post-Brexit circumstances any move by the UK to enhance the City’s competitive edge is likely to lessen the chances of progress on equivalence in the EU and the market access that comes with it.
There are, of course, aspects of the Bill that we welcome. I welcome the preliminary agreement between Gibraltar, the UK and Spain, which the Minister mentioned, and look forward to further detail following review by the European Commission. This is of importance to our whole financial sector, not least to our insurance industry.
I also welcome the moves that have been made to tighten up the fight against crime, money laundering and fraud, but equally I wonder, despite the passage of this legislation, how that struggle against criminality will have been affected by the loss of 400,000 records from our criminal database. That has been a disaster that will overrule many of the measures in this Bill.
There are some strange and disappointing omissions from the Bill. I will mention only one, but it is significant. The UK financial services sector has a key role to play in empowering the changes that we need to make to preserve the planet for future generations. But the Bill, which empowers the regulators in so many other ways, is totally silent on that critical issue. The Government say they want the UK to be the centre for green finance globally. Why then, in their first major piece of legislation on this sector since we left the EU, do they say nothing about instructing the regulators to make that a part of their objectives? I hope that the Minister can respond to this.
Of course, the private investment sector is making strong moves towards greater environmental investing, and there is growth in public demand for these products. But this cannot be done by the private sector alone. It will take both the private sector and the public sector working together and pulling in the same direction. I wish the Bill well in its intent, but I fear that it will fall far short of its aims.
Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]
My Lords, I shall focus my remarks chiefly on Clauses 3 and 5, and on Schedule 3. Before I do so, I should congratulate the Government on the speed with which they are addressing the matter of Gibraltar’s financial services industry. The Bill has 183 pages, and over 50 of them are devoted to Gibraltar.
With two important and welcome exceptions—debt respite and Help to Save—the rest of the Bill deals with technical and complex matters. In doing so, it raises profound questions about parliamentary scrutiny and the desirability of embodying an international competitive element in our financial services regimes.
Clauses 3 and 5 contain provisions to allow the PRA and the FCA effectively to make law by making rules without any parliamentary scrutiny. Clause 3 lists the provisions of the CRR that the Treasury may revoke by regulation. The list runs to 42 items, all of them significant. Clause 3(4) makes these revocations conditional on their being or having been adequately replaced by general rules made or to be made by the PRA, or to be replaced by nothing at all if the Treasury thinks that is okay. As things stand, it looks as though the Treasury is the sole judge of what may or may not be an adequate replacement. In any event, Parliament is bypassed. There is no provision for parliamentary scrutiny of these new rules, which have the force of law, but these rules can and will reshape critically important parts of our financial services regimes. Clause 5 takes the same lawmaking-by-rule approach to the regulation of credit institutions. Again, there will be no parliamentary scrutiny of these rules.
The Government have acknowledged the need for a discussion about the role of parliamentary scrutiny in the post-Brexit repatriation of powers previously exercised by the EU directly to our regulators without stopping en route at our Parliament. In March of last year, the EU Sub-Committee on financial services, of which I was chair, wrote to the Government about the issue, as the Minister has mentioned. In his response, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury noted that we had highlighted that
“delegating more powers to the financial regulators will require enhanced parliamentary oversight of their activities.”
There is now an open Treasury consultation on the future of financial services. The call for evidence in this consultation contains 17 key questions. Three of these relate to the issue of parliamentary scrutiny. They are: through what legislative mechanism should new financial regulations be made?; what role does Parliament have to play in influencing new financial services regulations?; how should new UK financial regulations be scrutinised? The consultation closes on 18 February. In practice, it means that the Bill will have left this House by the time the consultation results are available to us. In any case, HMT has indicated that the results will inform yet another consultation, later in 2021, in which the Government will set out a package of proposals. By that time, of course, the provisions in this Bill will have become law and there will no longer be an opportunity for real parliamentary scrutiny of the legally binding rules they will generate.
The Minister emphasised in his closing remarks on Report in the Commons that this Bill is
“just one part of the wider long-term strategy for financial services.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/1/2021; col. 398.]
Given the narrow and technical scope of the current contents of this Bill, I was glad to hear that, and take it to mean that a second and more comprehensive financial services Bill is in prospect. But the fact is that, by the time we get round to that, the “making laws by rulemaking” procedure will have passed into law. Parliamentary scrutiny of the new rules as laws will have been avoided. We will want to return at later stages to the question of what we can do about this bypassing of Parliament in such critical areas.
I turn briefly to Schedule 3 and the insertion of new Part 9D into the already overloaded and much-amended FSMA 2000, and in particular to new subsection 1(b) of Clause 144C. This seemingly innocuous subsection could bring about radical change in our regulatory regimes. It introduces as a “have regard” in the PRA’s making of CRR rules the notion of international competitiveness for our regimes. This is a highly contested area and the idea has been opposed by many leading figures, including from the party opposite, as being likely to promote conflicts of interest. We will want to examine this in detail at later stages.
During the passage of the Bill through the Commons, there was some discussion of more directly consumer-facing measures. These included imposing a duty of care on the financial services industry and providing significantly more relief for those mortgage prisoners trapped by the Treasury’s dereliction and carelessness in selling on mortgage books to unregulated entities. We will want to return to these issues later in our consideration of the Bill.
We will also want to discuss extending the FCA’s perimeter to take in more of the SME lending market. This is particularly urgent given the terrible position that many SMEs find themselves in as a result of Brexit and Covid-19. We will also want to debate the issue of preserving access to cash in the Covid and post-Covid world. I look forward to the Minister’s reply and to our future debates.
Lord Hammond of Runnymede (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I draw attention to my directorship of OakNorth International and my membership of the international advisory board of Nomura, both of them banks.
It is a privilege to address your Lordships’ House for the first time. It may be only 100 yards from the other place, but it is a very different place. I am extremely grateful to the officers and staff of the House and to my supporters, my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lord Barwell, for their welcome and assistance as I navigate the customs and practices—and indeed the corridors—of this place. I am delighted to be making this speech from the Government Benches, having momentarily mislaid the Conservative whip during the last few weeks of my 22-year career in the Commons.
The title of Lord Hammond of Runnymede may speak to the wider world of the ancient roots of our democracy and of the origins of the rule of law, but, for me, it will always recall the privilege of representing the people of Runnymede and Weybridge, sharing their problems, challenges and triumphs over more than two decades.
My Back-Bench career in the other place was short. The year 1997 was rather like the day after the battle of the Somme in the parliamentary Conservative Party. The general staff was in disarray, the officer corps decimated and new recruits like myself were being promoted in the field; thus began my 12-year apprenticeship on the Opposition Front Bench, before entering the Government in 2010, where I had the privilege to lead four great departments of state, each remarkable in its own different way.
I arrived at the Department for Transport with a single clear instruction: get HS2 built. As an immediate former shadow Chief Secretary, I approached this task with a degree of scepticism, but quickly became a convert to the potential of high-speed rail to change the facts of economic geography, as the original railway had changed Victorian England, and to play a key role in rebalancing the UK economy.
I moved on to defence in the dying days of the Libya campaign of 2011. The MoD is an extraordinary place, a military headquarters as well as a department of state. It is shaped by its unique blend of civilian and uniformed staff and the ethos of the Armed Forces that pervades it. It was an enormous privilege to work with it through a period of managed withdrawal from Afghanistan and majoring restructuring at home as we reconfigured the department and delivered a balanced Budget for the first time in a decade.
In July 2014, my next move was across the road to the grandeur of the FCO and by far the best office in Whitehall. I say to noble Lords that it is not for nothing that successive Foreign Secretaries have gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure that Prime Ministers do not enter that room. In two years as Foreign Secretary, I made 104 overseas visits to 78 countries, gaining an invaluable insight into how others see us and our contribution to their histories—for better or for worse, there are remarkably few in whose histories we have not played a role of some kind. What I learned is how much importance our many friends attach to the characteristics, structures and institutions that define our nation and of which we sometimes appear to be so careless.
In July 2016, my final move was to No. 11. As the guardian of Britain’s economic and fiscal interests, it is hardly surprising that, whatever the political arguments, the Treasury saw Brexit primarily as a threat to the UK’s economic success story. With storm clouds gathering over the economy and uncertainty rife, I set myself a four-point plan: first, to complete the rebuilding of our public finances as a bulwark against the next crisis, little guessing that the next crisis would come so soon; secondly, to soften the economic blow of exiting the single market by securing a transition period, which is uncontroversial now but was a heretical notion in the Brexit-intoxicated days of autumn 2016; thirdly, to shift the balance of public spending, albeit gently, from consumption to investment as part of a plan to unlock the productivity riddle that has bedevilled the British economy since the Second World War; and, finally, to protect our vital financial services industry, which despite the Treasury’s sometimes expansive view of its role is actually the only sector for which it has direct responsibility. That brings me neatly to the Bill.
I strongly support all the objectives that the Government have set out for the Bill, making it an ideal vehicle for a maiden speech by someone who has so recently recovered the Whip. I want to take the opportunity to note the importance of financial services not just to London but to the whole UK economy—it provides 7% of our GDP, 11% of tax revenues and millions of jobs across the length and breadth of Britain—to plead, even at this late stage, for a greater focus on it in our ongoing discussions with the EU and to suggest the inclusion of a duty on our regulators to promote competitiveness as some other countries have done. I hope that it will be the first of many measures designed to reinforce the stability and competitiveness of UK financial services as they absorb the challenge of what, for them, is a no-deal Brexit and the inevitable, albeit gradual, loss of EU business.
I enjoyed every minute of my nine years in Cabinet and I learned much from the many extraordinary people I encountered on my journey. I hope that the experience that I have gained leading four great departments of state will qualify me to contribute to your Lordships’ debates over the years to come.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I first draw attention to my interests as set out in the register and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hammond of Runnymede on a maiden speech of great breadth and insight, which served to underline what a considerable asset he is going to be to these Benches in particular and to this House more widely. As my noble friend reminded us, he has served with distinction in a number of departments, culminating in his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer. How right he was to point out huge sectors of our economy, in particular financial services, where we are not in the business of finessing a new relationship with the European Union but are yet to ensure that there are any arrangements at all. When my noble friend speaks on economic matters, he does so with rare authority and I look forward to hearing much more from him.
There is one specific point that I would like to develop in my remarks today. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000—FiSMA—set out four objectives for the Financial Services Authority, the FSA, as it then was: market confidence, public awareness, the protection of consumers and the reduction of financial crime. In addition, the FSA was required to have regard to a number of other factors, including efficiency, proportionality, innovation and
“the international character of financial services and markets and the desirability of maintaining the competitive position of the United Kingdom.”
The Financial Services Act 2012, in response to the 2008 banking crisis, removed that requirement because it was argued that it had served to dilute the robustness of regulation. This argument was founded on an entirely false dichotomy between effective regulation and international competitiveness, for the truth is that a robust, respected and proportionate regulatory regime is an intrinsic part of the UK’s competitive advantage in financial services. We now have the future regulatory framework review. In its phase 2 consultation paper, which I happen to have with me, the Government acknowledged this:
“A gap in the original FiSMA model is that, while it set high-level general objectives and principles, it did not provide for government and Parliament to set the policy approach for specific areas of financial services regulation.”
A partial move towards more activity-specific regulation is seemingly adumbrated in Schedule 3 to the Bill, which has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. This would require the PRA, when considering capital requirements regulation, to have regard to
“the likely effect of the rules on the relative standing of the United Kingdom as a place for internationally active credit institutions and investment firms to be based or to carry on activities.”
A similar obligation is to be imposed on the FCA when making Part 9C rules in relation to internationally active investment firms. So competitiveness is edging slowly and surely back into the picture sector by sector and it is a process that I believe many of us want to see accelerate in the months ahead. I also hope that the Government will now come forward with a clear action plan to establish the UK not only as the world centre for broking—that is to say, the selling of insurance and reinsurance—but as the natural home for insurers and reinsurers.
I warmly welcome the Bill because it suggests a direction of travel that will deliver the high-quality, agile and responsive regulation that we need, putting the UK at the forefront of the world market in terms of competitiveness, consumer protection and innovation.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as an ambassador and former president of the Money Advice Trust, the charity which runs National Debtline and Business Debtline. I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hammond, on his excellent maiden speech, and look forward later on to the second maiden speech in this debate, from my noble friend Lady Shafik.
I comment first on Clause 34 in relation to the debt respite scheme and, in particular, statutory debt repayment plans. I am delighted that the first element of the debt respite scheme, Breathing Space, is coming into force on 4 May this year. This will give people in debt much needed protection while they seek debt advice. But it is vital now that the Government prioritise the introduction of the second element of the scheme, which is statutory debt repayment plans—SDRPs. They have never been more needed than now, in the wake of Covid-19, and I hope the Government will set out a clear timetable for their implementation.
After all, there is a great deal of agreement on their merits. They will ensure that people who are repaying their debts in full, but who need to do so in an affordable way over a manageable period, will receive binding, legal protection from creditor action and from having additional interest, fees and charges added to their debts. Crucially, public sector creditors—including local authorities and central government—are included in the scheme, and I commend the Government for taking this step. When the Government first consulted on introducing SDRPs in 2018, no one could have foreseen where we would be today, in 2021, facing the severe financial impact of a pandemic, but it is clear now that SDRPs can be a key part of helping households to recover from the financial impact of the outbreak.
I would like to illustrate with one very quick example. Imagine a couple, with two children—one of them furloughed, the other with their hours cut. They struggle to cover their bills and miss a few council tax payments. Being at home with the children more than usual means their energy bill is higher than expected, so arrears build up. They have a mortgage and some outstanding consumer credit debts too. Despite getting an initial payment break on these, this has now expired. Fast forward a few months and, promisingly, they have returned to work and their income has stabilised. They can afford to make some payments towards their debts every month, but not enough to meet their obligations in full. As a result, the council starts enforcement proceedings to recover the arrears, and the energy company wants paying too. This couple will be able to repay their debts in full, but they need time. They need an option to do so affordably without being chased for more than they can pay or having extra fees or charges added. This is exactly what a statutory debt repayment plan would offer them, and it would stop their temporary financial difficulty growing into a bigger debt problem.
Of course, it is understandable that some time will be needed to pass regulations and ensure the necessary infrastructure is in place to introduce these repayment plans, but I hope that the Minister can assure the House that this will be an absolute priority for the Treasury. I ask the Minister to ensure that the Government set out a firm timetable for introducing the new plans.
I turn very briefly now to another important issue that I hope the Government will consider as the Bill progresses through this House. The Bill considers future regulation and rightly highlights the importance of maintaining high consumer protection standards. One area of current concern is that of “imposter” or “clone” websites which pose as legitimate free debt advice charities. Of course, the National Debtline or StepChange actually are free debt advice charities, but these imposter websites can be highly convincing and can mean individuals end up thinking they are speaking to a free debt advice charity when they are not. They may end up in inappropriate debt solutions or being charged significant fees. Will the Government use the Bill to close the regulatory loophole that allows this to happen by bringing forward an amendment to bring the activity of introducing an individual to a debt advice or debt solution service within the FCA’s regulatory remit?
Given the financial impact of Covid-19, it is more important than ever that people are offered safe routes out of debt, and I hope the Government will continue to make this a priority, through this Bill and elsewhere.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, it is right to underline the importance of the financial services sector in our country and the huge contribution it makes. There are many laudable things in this Bill: the strengthening of money laundering regulations; encouraging saving; and the creation of parity between white collar crimes, such as market manipulation, and general fraud by extending the maximum sentence.
I was disappointed, however, to hear that the Commons amendment exploring the whole issue of ethical investment with reference to genocide did not make it into the Bill. I understand the Government’s reservation—they do not want to politicise the FCA. Nevertheless, I hope that “global Britain”, as laid out by the intentions of the Bill, will also be very much “ethical Britain” as we place ourselves in the world under the new freedoms that we have. I also note, with other noble Lords, the concern that there seems to be so little clarity on the question of parliamentary scrutiny. I am sure we will return to this as the Bill passes through your Lordships’ House. Of course, fundamental to this whole future is that the FCA is adequately resourced to fulfil its task.
I touch on just one major issue, which takes up a major part of the Bill: the Gibraltar authorisation regime. The issue of Gibraltar’s lower corporation tax rate of 10% was raised during the Commons Report stage as a significant issue, and it is one that warrants raising again. During his evidence session, the Minister said that corporation tax rate was not a factor in relocation to Gibraltar. While I recognise that relocation can be costly and that operating in London has many benefits not offered by Gibraltar, nevertheless there are significant tax advantages.
This has become all too clear in another area of work that I have raised repeatedly in your Lordships’ House—the issue of the tax avoidance of many companies, including gambling firms, which are a particular focus I have had. For example, in 2019, the Daily Mail revealed that 32Red, based in Gibraltar, paid just £812,000 in corporation tax over a 10-year period—an effective UK tax rate of 3%. William Hill, with its six subsidiaries in Gibraltar, is expected to pay 12% in corporation tax in 2020. Ladbrokes Coral is not required to disclose its tax rate, but one of its two licences to operate in the UK is registered in Gibraltar. While these relate particularly to a very focused area of my interests, of course this mechanism applies equally to financial firms.
These arrangements predate our departure from the EU and, given the likelihood that Gibraltar continues to be used in this matter, I am not placing the blame on this new Financial Services Bill. However, during the progress of this Bill, there will be an opportunity to examine again what the appropriate rules would be, particularly within the financial sector, to prevent Gibraltar being simply a place where firms and companies are reducing their tax bill. Will the UK Government commit to publishing an annual report assessing the consequences of the Gibraltar authorisation regime on tax receipts from the financial industry, as well as outlining how they intend to work with the Gibraltarian authorities to ensure there is a fair tax settlement for both territories?
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure indeed to welcome my noble friend Lord Hammond of Runnymede to this House and to congratulate him on his excellent speech. Runnymede is, of course, a place where a bunch of irate barons got together, incensed by high levels of tax they were having to pay to fund the war with France. Disgruntled Peers, cross about the impact that relations with Europe were having on their nation—not much changes, does it?
I turn to the matter in hand and draw your Lordships’ attention to my entry in the register of interests. As has been said, the Bill arrives in this House at a key juncture for the UK’s financial services sector. In the post-Brexit world, it is more critical than ever that we keep our financial services competitive, as others have said, and remain a globally competitive financial centre. Some may think that the best way to do that is to ensure that our regulations remain, as far as possible, aligned to the EU’s. That approach overall would be unwise and unrealistic. It would be unwise because it is in our national interest to chart our own course for our financial services sector—a goose that lays so many of our golden eggs. The approach would be unrealistic because the EU wants to build up its own financial services and therefore, in the words of my noble friend Lord Hill, whom the noble Lord, Lord Reid, quoted a moment ago, the EU will not seek to do us any favours. We would soon find out that our interests and those of our EU friends would be at odds.
Instead, we need to have the confidence that comes from the City being—to quote Mark Carney—the EU’s investment banker and a global financial epicentre that existed well before the European Union was dreamt of. We need to look to a future that is green, a future that is digital and a future that is full of opportunities. We must strengthen our position in this new world. To achieve that, Ministers and regulators must focus on how our regulatory system can help to strengthen our competitiveness. As my noble friend Lord Hunt has just said, competitiveness was one of the regulator’s objectives but was removed after the financial crash and, as has been mentioned, the Government are now consulting on whether to reinsert competitiveness as an objective. It is a pity that that consultation is still underway, given its relevance to the Bill. I will be pressing the Minister on that point.
Of course—let me make this very clear—we should not forget the lessons that we learnt from 2008, nor should we race to the bottom in terms of regulations. Robust regulation is the bedrock of strong financial services but we must not get trapped in the past and regulate entirely via the rear-view mirror. Look overseas: regulators’ objectives have been adjusted since the financial crisis but without abandoning competitiveness altogether. Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan and Malaysia have competitiveness or growth as a regulatory objective or principle.
We need to look ahead and plan ahead. We must properly balance the need for stability with the need to be competitive so that the UK is innovative, dynamic and a great place to do business. I do not agree with the false choice contained in the Government’s consultation, which states that,
“a new competitiveness objective could distract from or dilute the key stability, market integrity and consumer protection objectives.”
We can and should strive to be both competitive and stable as a financial centre. Nor is the new so-called accountability framework sufficient. Requiring the PRA to consider the impact of its actions on competitiveness is no substitute for making competitiveness a core objective.
That brings me to the issue of accountability and scrutiny. Our regulators are getting more power and the Government are perfectly open about that. They have stated that they are,
“delegating a very substantial level of policy responsibility to the UK financial services regulators.”
If regulators are being given additional powers, there should surely be a commensurate increase in scrutiny. I therefore argue and agree with others that we need to look carefully at how regulators will be scrutinised by Parliament. Of course, getting the balance right is critical but we do not want Ministers or Parliament micromanaging regulators. There are questions as to whether enough is being done to hold unelected regulators to account.
That brings me back to where I began. The best way for Parliament to make regulators accountable is for elected MPs to set unelected regulators very clear objectives. At the moment, those objectives will not achieve our aim to strengthen our competitiveness. That needs to be addressed.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hammond, on his maiden speech. I particularly welcome his entry to the House because I am also an unapologetic fan of spreadsheets. The Bill is necessary, of course, consequent on leaving the European Union. To a large extent, it is intended simply to replace what we had before but it provides the opportunity to go further, as we have been promised. I shall mention a couple of points that I hope we can pursue in more detail in Committee.
First, there is the Financial Conduct Authority. I do not have enough time at this stage to go into any detail but I want to put down a marker, that the FCA has failed too often in the past and simply has to do better in future. In the Bill, Clause 39 deals with the appointment of the chief executive. What is required here is clearer and greater accountability, and I would argue that Parliament has a crucial role there.
Secondly, Clause 34 relates to the debt respite scheme. I support debt respite, particularly given the situation in which we find ourselves, and I support the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins. However, the proposals in the Bill totally lack ambition, given the scale of the problems we face. We need to understand that while debt has a personal impact, ruining lives and leading to much misery, it also affects us all by acting as a drag on the economy and the recovery that is so desperately needed.
There should be a modern debt jubilee—that is, a comprehensive package of debt cancellations targeted at the household sector. We need, in effect, a debt write-off for households, broadly along the lines established for the financial sector 12 years ago. We were told then that some banks were too big to fail because of the harm that it would cause to the economy. I argue that the failure of individuals because of debt means as much, or even greater, harm for us all.
That is not such a radical proposal. The ancient kings, under the Mosaic law, would announce debt forgiveness for their people so that they could start anew. Traditionally, that would be every 50 years, hence the jubilee. It is crucial to understand that those rulers were not being idealistic or kind in forgiving debts; in fact, they were being very practical. If the economic imbalance was not reset, there was a danger that their kingdom would fall. The main argument for such a scheme, therefore, is that in addition to relieving much individual misery it would provide a direct and targeted macroeconomic boost to the economy, exactly where it is needed. Relieving household debt would generate economic growth in the same way as a tax cut would, but it would be better targeted, allowing people to keep more of their income as pounds in their pockets. The money would flow into consumption, savings or investment, rather than into debt repayment.
There will, of course, be concern that cancelling any debts, even those debts long-abandoned by the lender, will punish the prudent and reward the profligate. That is to misunderstand how the credit system functions and how retail financial markets operate. It is hard to believe that a debt write-off will cause greater harm to those who are unaffected by indebtedness than it will benefit those who are already struggling. The beneficial effects will come to us all. Abolishing household debt, starting with the most pernicious and harmful, will generate gains that are generalised and distributed across the people of the UK as a whole.
As noble Lords will be aware, plans are already being made to celebrate one jubilee next year. Let us also plan a jubilee that will assist not just those among us who are the hardest pressed in our society but all of us. How far we can go towards such an objective in the context of the Bill, I hope we can explore in Committee.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this Second Reading. I declare my interests as set out in the register. It is greater pleasure to congratulate my noble friend Lord Hammond of Runnymede on his exquisite maiden speech. In it, I think the whole House heard that he is so much more than the misnomic “Spreadsheet Phil”. We have a real heavyweight in our midst, and I very much look forward to his future contributions on economic matters and so much more.
I would like to cover the areas of financial technology, or fintech, financial inclusion, or fininc, and the international perspective. Fintech is a great British success story, but we are slipping. The FCA sandbox was world-leading in its time and its great success demonstrated in how it has been copied around the world. Does the Minister agree that we need to update the sandbox to enable it to be available to all comers at all times rather than just those who are first in class? Does he agree that, in a sense, we need to industrialise the sandbox? Does he also agree that we need, for want of a better phrase, a growth box to address the scale-up challenge facing our fintechs? Does he have some early learnings from the City of London and FCA’s proof of concept around the digibox? It is early, I know, but there may be learnings that we can take into Committee and Report of this Bill.
Similarly, I would like to touch on crypto. The UK could be a world leader in crypto assets. Are we going to look to emulate MICA, do more than MICA or do something different? Similarly, we could be a world leader in setting the taxonomy for global crypto assets. Is that part of the plan? We have a fintech industry ripe for solving so many problems and driving so much economic growth. Does the Minister agree?
Another example is a central bank digital currency. If we looked at a hybrid model, we would be a world leader in rolling that out. If we do not, what about the challenge from Libra, now Diem, with the private sector potentially taking a huge influence over our macroeconomic policy? Look at what has happened with social media. If even a fraction of that happened with a digital currency, it would have not just an economic but a social impact—an impact on our very polity.
I turn to financial inclusion. Macmillan Cancer Support, which has done so much in this area, is pushing for a duty of care. I agree. Does the Minister? Similarly, with the SDRP regime, what is the timetable for bringing it into being? When we are looking at the breathing-space clauses, which are welcome, do they need further review against the backdrop of the Covid crisis? Similarly, can the Minister say whether bailiffs are being stopped from doorstepping people during this lockdown, as they were during the first one? It is not clear right now whether that is the case.
I turn to the international perspective, like other noble Lords I welcome the action in relation to Gibraltar. Will there be moves to enable Gibraltar to be part of a free-trade area with the UK?
When we look at the Basel framework, how does that work in terms of some of the international contexts? I would like to see a lot more British involvement in the continent of Africa, but African assets and investments are currently highly weighted from a risk perspective. Is that prudential or protectionist?
Does the Minister agree that when we look at technology and financial technology across the piece it would seem to make sense that we need a unit, a centre within government, maybe within the Treasury—for want of a better expression, a “fourth industrial revolution delivery unit”—to bring policy problems to private and public sector practical solutions?
In the Bill I believe we have the opportunity to reflect and consider what financial services are for. If they are for anything, they must be about enabling, empowering and unleashing individuals, institutions, innovations, neighbourhoods and nation states in a connected, interoperable and economic globe.
In the other place the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the right honourable John Glen, called the Bill a “portfolio”—right enough. I hope noble Lords will be able to persuade the Minister during the passage of this Bill through your Lordships’ House that we can turn it into a portmanteau—a portmanteau to carry us, our economy and our society better through 2021 and well beyond.
Baroness Hayman (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of Peers for the Planet. My contribution today will focus on what is not in the Bill —namely, any reference to climate change considerations in relation to financial services and their regulation. First, I have a couple of more general points, and of course a welcome for the impressive and engaging maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Hammond of Runnymede.
I was very sympathetic to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and others on the need for improving the arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny set out in the Bill. I shall be very interested to follow the arguments and discussions on competitiveness, particularly in the light of a powerful speech that I heard last week from David Miliband when he spoke about the sharp dividing line between cultures of accountability and cultures of impunity that apply not only to political systems but, as we have painfully learned, to financial systems as well.
I turn to my main point—a point that I was pleased was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan—which is the absence of any reference within the provisions of the Bill to climate change risk and the UK’s net-zero commitments. That the financial sector will be crucial for unlocking the private investment necessary for both green recovery and long-term economic security was made very clear by the Government in their 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution. Alok Sharma, then the BEIS Secretary of State, pledged:
“We will harness the international reputation of the UK’s world leading financial sector to encourage private investment into supporting innovation and manage climate financial risk.”
The Chancellor of the Exchequer wrote in his 9 November Statement of
“putting the full weight of private sector innovation, expertise and capital behind the critical global effort to tackle climate change and protect the environment.”
This strong rhetoric from the Government reflects what is happening in the financial sector in the UK and across the world. Only this week we have seen Black Rock adopt a climate alignment metric for its funds while many other financial institutions, from pension funds to banks, are announcing their commitments to net zero. However, to deliver systemic change at the speed required, we need increased action. Fine words and long-term aspirations will not be sufficient to tackle the scale of the challenge, and the Government need to take a lead in creating the environment and regulatory framework to encourage rapid progress.
The mismatch between rhetoric and activity can be seen across the sector. Lending to fossil fuels from 35 of the biggest banks continued to rise, up from $700 billion in 2018 to $736 billion in 2019. UK banks are currently the worst in Europe for high carbon lending. While the total value of assets held by financial institutions in the UK is around £20 billion, estimates put the value of global funds managed with explicit ESG criteria as, at most, 0.4%.
The Bill needs to reflect the urgency of the task and set the direction of travel through the future regulatory framework for financial services. We have to create a framework that supports our climate goals and explicitly provides for climate risk to be assessed and factored into decisions. The wider consultation on the future framework to which the Minister and others have referred provides no justification for neglecting the opportunity to put the appropriate markers and measures down in the Bill when the Government’s green finance policy and ambition has been so clearly set out already.
We need a concerted and urgent focus on actively aligning investment with the objectives of the Paris Agreement, so it is extremely concerning that the Bill does not even include the first step of addressing climate risks by ensuring that they are taken into account by the regulator when discharging its duties in making new regulations. I look forward to working with other noble Lords on amendments that would rectify these omissions and send a clear signal of a direction of travel to the sector and regulators.
In the year that the UK hosts COP 26, we must be meticulous in ensuring that we lead by example in every aspect of government policy. Mark Carney, the Prime Minister’s financial adviser at COP 26, wrote in November:
“The objective for the private finance work for COP26 is simple: ensure that every professional financial decision takes climate change into account.”
We must ensure that the Bill underpins that objective.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register.
I have been in this House for five years, wondering what happens about our most important industry. Diligently commenting on unamendable statutory instruments, or having yet another debate about regulators’ failure, does not really cut it for parliamentary scrutiny. In a similar length of time, I negotiated the 40 complex sets of post-financial crisis legislation in the EU. I do not expect to do that again, but it is good to see a Bill, and it is attracting two substantial maiden contributors. The problem is that to keep up on Basel 3.1 and separate out investment firm prudential regulation, it runs ahead of the consultation that is still open, implementing the division of powers in isolation from whatever comes from the consultation, deliberately fixing the path.
It did not have to be this way. The SIs revoking provisions when regulators’ replacements have been drafted could instead contain those changes, but the truth is that the Government have decided the future. Regulators are indulged, Parliament ignored. The excuse is made that the division of powers is just returning to the original FiSMA 2000, despite that being out to consultation. Apart from it not turning out well then, and the prioritisation of industry consultation over Parliament, financial services were not without EU involvement in 2000. There was already EU banking and insurance legislation. The Financial Services Action Plan was laid out in 1999 and broadly completed by 2004, with co-ordinating financial supervisory bodies well established.
It is true that the UK was on its own with the FSA’s supervisory mistakes, and cheer-led the Basel blundering, but since the financial crisis, there is so much more detailed and complex legislation than there was in 2000, so much more EU, public and parliamentary consultation and scrutiny. The FiSMA 2012 amendments were done in that setting. Now the light is switched off, and we fall back on arrogant, secretive policy-making, which is no way to be world-leading in the modern age.
It is not transparent what UK regulators and the Treasury get up to in the international standards bodies. Supervisory-led bodies have not always got it right. They got Basel II wrong. We do not know but just hope that they have got it right now. They suffer from groupthink, and then regulators implement and mark their own homework. That is why there must be big, public conversations involving Parliament.
Some legislatures, such as the EU and the US, get to scrutinise and confirm alignment with international standards once they have debated them. In the EU, regulators are regularly reviewed and peer-reviewed. In the US, the US Government Accountability Office conducts an independent annual study of financial regulations and the federal agencies. In this Bill, the Government tie our hands and legs before the scrutiny race starts.
The Explanatory Memorandum says that accountability measures have been included, meaning the scant “matters to consider” provisions for when the regulators are making rules. These “have regard” lists are too short—there are other matters of policy to consider—and there is no measure of how the regulators are accountable, other than by their own explanations and a bit of shouting by us if it has all gone wrong and still more Gloster, Connaught or GRG reports turn up. Heaven knows how anyone thinks that skeleton primary legislation can give certainty for other major jurisdictions to find us equivalent, when substantive policy can be changed in the blink of a regulator’s eye. No wonder they say that they do not know what is planned. They never will.
It is not easy being a regulator, but things have been missed too often, even when newspapers and Parliament have drawn it to attention, so we need regular independent reviews, rather like a Section 166 inquiry on regulators, with oversight on follow-through. Statutory regulator’s consultations are for industry, and there is nothing in the Bill that marks a position for Parliament. There is no access to data for industry or Parliament to independently check or challenge fair basis of the rules.
The Bill separates different types of financial institutions that have previously been swept together under banking legislation. The regulators should be given a specific direction to do more of that for small and non-systemic banks and for different categories of insurance, especially captives and reinsurance, as Ireland has. That would be useful for partial equivalences, too. The FCA’s financial system integrity objective needs backing with failure-to-prevent offences. We need duties of care, better treatment of small businesses in commercial contracts and to make the regulator’s statutory panels transparent, independent and able to consult, not secretive, selective and steered. I do not agree that FiSMA 2000 is the right model. It is arcane, it failed then and it is still secretive and shallow now, diminishing the UK. I will try to make it better.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hammond, on his excellent speech. I welcome him to the House and look forward to his wise words on many issues.
The Bill has many deficiencies. I have sufficient time to speak on only two matters. In the post-Brexit world, the UK needs to compete to attract business. A key requirement is to ensure that the UK is a clean place with robust regulators. However, the Bill does not do that. It should have been preceded by an independent public inquiry into the finance industry and its regulation.
Regulatory failures continue to make headlines. For example, Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s report on the collapse of London Capital and Finance found that the FCA’s supervision was “wholly deficient” and that its staff
“had not been trained sufficiently to analyse a firm’s financial information to detect indicators of fraud or other serious irregularity.”
The report concluded that the FCA failed to fulfil its statutory objectives. The FCA has also been criticised in a report on the collapse of the Connaught Income Fund, and the long-running saga of frauds at the Royal Bank of Scotland and HBOS are further evidence of the FCA’s failures.
Anyone tackling corrupt practices in the finance industry faces obstacles. In February 2017, the Thames Valley police and crime commissioner, Anthony Stansfeld, prosecuted six financiers, including a senior ex-HBOS banker. They were jailed for a total of 47 and a half years. After being shamed, the FCA in June 2019 fined Lloyds Bank £45.5 million. Thames Valley Police force spent £7 million on the prosecutions, but it has not really been compensated by the Government and thus the force has been disabled from mounting any further investigations.
The Conservative police and crime commissioner for Thames Valley has also sought to tackle other cases of financial frauds but has met political and regulatory opposition. On 8 February 2019, he told the London Evening Standard:
“I am convinced the cover-up goes right up to Cabinet level. And to the top of the City.”
That is a strong condemnation of the current regulatory arrangements. The recurring problem is that the regulators are too close to the industry and like to bat for the industry rather than protect people from malpractices. The Bill does not cleanse the finance industry or enhance protections for the people.
My second point relates to the Basel III framework which is implemented by the Bill and affects the calculation of minimum capital requirements and leverage ratios for banks. However, many of the problems highlighted by the 2007-08 crash remain unaddressed. The Government want banks to have more equity, but they have incentivised debt and high leverage, as the interest payments attract tax relief and enable banks to report higher returns to shareholders. Why have the Government not addressed this contradiction at the heart of the calculations of capital for banks?
Financial statements of regulated financial enterprises are based on international financial reporting standards—IFRSs, as they are commonly known. Their use was heavily criticised in the 2013 report by the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. The IFRSs give management too much discretion and management has used that to massage financial statements, as was shown by Carillion, for example. The IFRSs have no clear concept of capital maintenance and therefore calculations of capital based upon accounting numbers are fundamentally flawed. On bank balance sheets, various transactions in historical costs, amortised costs, net realisable values, present values, fair values, market values and even internally generated numbers are all added up. The calculation does not yield any meaningful number for capital maintenance. Banks are currently neither maintaining money, nor real or physical capital, so why do the Government consider them to be a useful guide for regulators?
Neither the FCA nor the Prudential Regulation Authority sets accounting rules for financial enterprises, but they rely on whatever the Financial Reporting Council comes up with. They are storing trouble for the future. The bank financial statements are targeted at short-term shareholders, essentially speculators and capital markets. They do not tell the regulators anything about market interdependencies or systemic risks, all of which were the causes of the 2007-08 crash.
The UK regulators rely on external auditors, even though big accounting firms are unable to deliver honest and robust audits. All banks which crashed in the 2007-08 crash received unqualified audit reports. The Financial Reporting Council routinely laments that 25% to 50% of the audits conducted by the big four accounting firms are deficient. Yet, bizarrely, regulators rely upon auditors. Auditors owe a duty of care to the company but not to any regulator. Regulators do not have a statutory right of access to the auditors’ files or staff. That was one of the reasons why the Bank of England was unable to fully investigate audit failures at Barings, delivered by Deloitte and Coopers & Lybrand, a firm which is now part of PricewaterhouseCoopers. Yet no lessons have been learned. One must also ask whether the reliance on ex-post audits is wise in a world of instantaneous movement of money. Is it not time that the regulators took direct responsibility for auditing the financial statements of banks?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, perhaps this is an opportune moment to remind Back-Benchers of the advisory time limit of six minutes for speeches.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entries in the register of interests. I join in the congratulations to my noble friend Lord Hammond on an excellent maiden speech. I will focus on his remarks about the regulator’s promotion of financial industry competitiveness, a theme expanded on most eloquently by my noble friends Lord Bridges and Lord Hunt. In order to achieve that, the regulatory framework must be robust, but the regulator must be nimble, agile, appropriately resourced and with carefully defined powers. It also needs to be accountable, as many noble Lords have noted. I look forward to the results of the current consultation into the wider framework for regulation and note that it is due to close by the end of next month.
Much of the current Bill before us is welcome and I support it, but I wish to raise some questions ahead of the Financial Conduct Authority having yet more powers delegated to it. I note that in the debate in the other place, which has been referred to a number of times, this theme was explored with reference to parliamentary scrutiny. That is a valid concern, but my concern is also to do with the FCA’s enormous existing remit and whether that is now simply too big to manage.
I will cite a couple of examples of where I think that perhaps this is the case. First is MiFID II, the market in financial instruments directive. Part of this dealt with the unbundling of commissions paid for stock market research. The FCA was the architect of these rules, but the French regulator recently noted that they have “profoundly changed” the research landscape and that this has had a negative effect on the quality of research available on smaller companies and therefore, by implication, the capital allocated to those companies. In the UK, the independent and not-for-profit CFA Institute has made similar points. The FCA has said that there is no evidence of this, but both the French and Germans have now changed the rules to exempt smaller companies from this part of the directive. There is no equivalence there, and I cannot recall a previous incidence of a French regulator changing rules to allow less regulation than our own.
Another example is that, last week, two opposition Members of the other House published a letter criticising the FCA’s customer protection skills with regards to the handling of advice given to British Steel pension holders. They alleged that the FCA lacks “sufficient vision” to tackle issues facing consumers and urge the regulator to use the full strength of its powers of enforcement to tackle rogue advisers. I am not particularly familiar with this case, if I am honest, but a swift Google would suggest that they have a point.
However, on the subject of enforcement, the most famous insider trading case launched by the FCA took eight years, cost in the order of £20 million, involved at least 40 investigators who pored over vast amounts of data and in the end secured two of five convictions, confiscation orders of £1.7 million and the longest custodial sentence that was handed down was four and a half years. It has been argued that regulators are discouraged from starting this type of investigation, because of the difficulty of winning, but the FCA has publicly regarded this as a success. It was a partial success perhaps, but at what cost, particularly to those acquitted individuals whose lives were on hold for eight years?
Other investigations that the FCA has conducted into funds management firms suggest that poor product knowledge, excessively high staff turnover and poor handover continuity make relatively straightforward investigations, which are launched perfectly legitimately, run for much longer than they need to. This has a deleterious impact on staff morale and massively increases compliance costs. Large firms can bear those costs with relative ease, but what of the SMEs that the sector relies on for competition and innovation?
I am sure that the FCA will argue that I have cherry picked a few instances which show them in a less than optimal light—perhaps I have. But I could have drawn on a number of other examples, for example, the Gloster report published in December referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, or the Parker report, also published in December. They were much more complex cases, so I have not used them here. They did not require much effort to find. These examples illustrate only a small part of the FCA’s incredibly wide remit, but the skills and knowledge required to investigate and appropriately regulate each of these examples is discrete and detailed.
So it is hard to escape the conclusion that the FCA is trying to do too much with too little. Yet we are debating delegating additional powers—for example, handing over the power to manage the orderly wind-down of Libor, which, as the briefing documents note, is used to benchmark an eye-watering $400 trillion-worth of contracts. There is no room here at all for mistakes of any kind, although I should note that the FCA is consulting the industry widely on this.
Many in the City believe that the FCA has the appropriate powers but does not use them often enough. On 21 December last year, the Times noted:
“The Financial Conduct Authority has fined only ten wrongdoers this year, its lowest scalp rating since its creation in 2013. It has meted out only £183.6 million in penalties, its third lowest total fines tally.”
I am quite sure that Covid will be cited as one reason for this, but the police carried on policing. Can that be a valid excuse, or is this because of the vast complexity of its role? Here, on complexity, I cite a June 2019 IEA report that claimed:
“The amount of data being collected under MiFID II is now beyond the ability of the UK regulators to assess in any meaningful way.”
I do not believe that the nuts and bolts of regulation, including enforcement, should be subject to political interference, but I think we should ask whether the FCA’s current remit is too broad. Is there a case to be made for smaller and more specialist regulators, particularly as financial markets become ever more complex? I am also concerned that regulated firms lack effective rights of appeal against the FCA’s decisions. As the Government themselves have noted in the past, such rights—and I quote from a BEIS consultation—are
“central to ensuring robust decision-making and holding regulators to account in the interests of justice”.
We have seen the results of failed or inadequate regulation before and they are recent and raw, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, noted. Post Brexit we have an opportunity to design and implement a system that does all the things the Government want, all the things that the industry needs, and all the things that the country deserves. We should do it properly and urgently, not least because we know where the blame for failure will land.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB) [V]
My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Hammond of Runnymede, on his maiden speech today, and I look forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Shafik. I have a tenuous connection to both speakers today. I chaired the EU Financial Affairs Sub-Committee in the period when the noble Lord was Chancellor, providing him with the odd unhelpful report on the UK exit fee, or the dangers of losing passporting rights, for his late-night reading. I should alert him to the fact that four of us from that committee are speaking in this debate today. My noble friend Lady Shafik is the first female appointed as director of the London School of Economics, my alma mater, and a former deputy governor at the Bank of England, where I am a member of the Enforcement Decision Making Committee, an independent panel under the PRA. Given my interests declared vis-à-vis the PRA, I will keep my contributions on this Bill high level, and restricted to certain areas only.
In early 2018, the EU Financial Affairs Sub-Committee published a report on the future of financial services regulation and supervision post Brexit. I believe that this was the most comprehensive survey of the options available to the UK if—and at that point it was an if—the UK left the EU. On examining the provisions of this Bill, I am pleased to say that our analysis was pertinent, and several of our recommendations will now see the light of day as this legislation becomes law.
One of our considerations is indeed at the heart of this Bill—that of where powers and standard setting by EU bodies rightly reside now that the UK is responsible for its own regulation. We concluded that our regulators were well regarded internationally and, despite some concerns expressed by noble Lords today, which I accept, the United Kingdom’s financial services sector is still regarded as number two globally, having been replaced in the number one slot by New York. It is leagues ahead of any other continental centre. This is relevant not out of some nationalistic hubris but because the real jobs and revenue that it provides are really important across the country.
Until last year the UK’s regime derived its legislative base from EU law, but we found out that in reality those standards were actually framed upstream through the Financial Stability Board, Basel, IOSCO and other standards setters. It is at that level that we need to focus our energies now, confident that our technical expertise is highly valued, but we also need to build new relationships. I note that the five largest financial sectors behind New York and the City are in east Asia, and Zurich is the only one in the top 10 globally from continental Europe. So we have opportunities upstream in co-operating with those jurisdictions to establish fair and proportionate frameworks.
While I have confidence in our regulators, I want to add my voice to the need for accountability. Standards setting and underpinning legislation that is now passing to our regulators is highly technical, but that does not mean that parliamentary scrutiny is redundant. So I urge the Minister, through the usual channels, seriously to consider setting up a joint committee of both Houses to carry out ongoing scrutiny of the effectiveness of this type of legislation. The City, as I know, is not keen to be a low-tax, low-regulation haven for dodgy dealing; it wants to preserve its hard-earned recent reputation. Oversight by Parliament at a more technical level can only enhance this. So when the Minister tells us that further legislation will build on this omnibus Bill, I urge him to suggest to his political masters that there will inevitably be a democratic deficit unless we have a parliamentary mechanism to do the relevant scrutiny, not least of HMT, when the Treasury Select Committee in the other place simply cannot carry out that technical work.
My final point is about competitiveness. The post-Brexit UK will inevitably need to rethink its competitiveness as business investment becomes more challenging to attract. So I also urge the Minister to explain what reservations the Government have, if any, about establishing an international competitiveness duty for the regulators. We recommended this in our report, and I think that the Treasury can usefully incorporate it into its thinking on the future regulatory framework. I know that some see competitiveness as a race to the bottom. I ask them to think of one very current example: the pharmaceutical sector. Would anyone today, looking at our vaccination strategy and successes, think that having a state of the art and competitive pharmaceutical sector represents a race to the bottom—or is it a necessary tool in the global challenge to remain in the lead where we have the relevant skills?
I look forward to the detailed scrutiny that we will undertake on this Bill in the months ahead but, in the meantime, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Northbrook (Con) [V]
My Lords, putting the contribution of the UK’s financial services in context, according to a City/PwC paper in January 2020 they contributed £75.5 billion in tax revenue in 2019, employing about 1.1 million people. Overall, I support the Bill’s measures, which bolster the consistent use of international standards. This is crucial to reducing the unnecessary fragmentation of markets that impacts on consumers. I agree with the delegation of responsibility for financial firm requirements to the regulators, subject to an enhanced accountability framework and necessary parliamentary scrutiny.
The three main objectives stated in the Bill are entirely sensible. The Bill also amends existing laws on financial services in the 17 separate areas grouped by these three stated objectives.
My only criticism of the second objective is that, while it promotes openness to EU and overseas financial firms that come here, no attempt was made in the Brexit negotiations to obtain passporting rights from the EU as a quid pro quo. The Government seem to have believed that these should only now be negotiated—alas, when we have no bargaining tools left in other areas. The EU seems in no hurry to assist us. Can the Minister explain the logic in this?
I welcome the new regulatory regime proposed for non-systematically important investment firms. The Government rightly state that the existing regime for these institutions can be disproportionate, inappropriate and impose unnecessary burdens. The Bill would rightly allow the Financial Conduct Authority to introduce a tailored regime for such companies. The Government say that the UK regime will be flexible and is intended to achieve similar outcomes to the reform in the EU in 2021 but
“tailored to the specificities of the UK market.”—[Official Report, Commons, Financial Services Bill Committee, 17/11/20; col. 59.]
I welcome the Bill’s implementation of Basel III standards on banking supervision. Some member firms will have been working towards implementing the EU’s capital regulatory requirements, CRR II. How may the UK diverge from CRR II?
I also support the framework to wind down the Libor benchmark, as outlined in the Bill. Will the Minister urge the FCA to publish further detail on its replacement as soon as possible?
Can the Minister clarify how the Treasury intends to make equivalence decisions under the framework for the new overseas fund regime? Will the Government publish a regular report on the progress and results of negotiations for obtaining equivalence for UK firms in EU countries? I strongly support maintaining the effectiveness of the financial services framework and sound capital markets in Clauses 8 to 17.
During the rest of my contribution, I will focus on the unfortunate statistic of the rise in complaints to the FCA and cite two examples of regulatory failure. According to an FTAdviser article of February 2020, the number of complaints about the City watchdog jumped by more than 50% in 2019, primarily due to concern about the regulator’s supervision of the industry. The main driver behind the hike was the sharp increase in the number of complaints relating to the FCA’s advisory role—namely, failure to act on information and to spot a problem. In the same month, the FCA was reprimanded by the complaints commissioner, Antony Townsend. He wrote to the FCA board expressing serious concerns, branding the current situation at the watchdog “totally unacceptable”. This followed a previous report in 2019, where the complaints commissioner highlighted a
“lack of effective prompt action”
by the financial regulator, in a number of cases where advisers and consumers reported concerns about a fund.
The two individual examples of regulatory failure on which I will focus are London Capital & Finance and Beaufort Securities. In December 2020 an independent investigation into the FCA’s handling of the LCF mini-bond scandal rebuked the regulator for “significant gaps and weaknesses” in its policies and practices. The review found that the City watchdog had failed to properly regulate the now collapsed company. It warned that its handling of information about the business from third parties was “wholly deficient” and an
“egregious example of the FCA’s failure to fulfil its statutory objectives”
in regulating the company. The mini-bond provider collapsed in May 2019, owing more than £230 million and putting the funds of some 14,000 bondholders at risk.
The main highlights of the review were that, first, investors had not received enough protection from the regulatory regime, and, secondly, LCF had not been adequately supervised by the FCA. Most importantly, the review stated that the root causes of the FCA’s failure to regulate LCF were “significant gaps and weaknesses” in the policies and practices it implemented to analyse the business activities of regulated firms. It had allowed LCF to use its authorised status to promote
“risky, and potentially fraudulent, non-regulated investment products to unsophisticated retail investors”.
Although the regulator’s financial promotions team had raised concerns about LCF’s financial promotions on six occasions, the breaches did not result in a referral to the supervision or enforcement divisions. Lastly, the report said:
“FCA staff who reviewed materials submitted by LCF had not been trained sufficiently to analyse a firm’s financial information to detect indicators of fraud or other serious irregularity … Neither did the FCA appreciate the significance of an ever-growing number of red flags, which were indicative of serious irregularities in LCF’s business. This occurred at a time when LCF’s unregulated bond business was growing at a rapid pace and substantial funds were being invested by Bondholders.”
I do not have time to go through the case of Beaufort Securities with which there were many of the same problems, though in a number of cases, investors got their money back. Overall, I welcome the Bill.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chair of StepChange Debt Charity.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hammond of Runnymede, on his maiden speech. In your Lordships’ House we do a good line in former Chancellors of the Exchequer; in normal times, when the House is sitting on a regular basis, there is almost a full Bench of them. He joins an exalted group, and I am sure he will quickly make his mark, even among that competition.
I will focus on Parts 6 and 7. I echo the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Holmes, in welcoming these proposals. I want also to raise the specific issue of high-cost credit, which the Government should stamp out.
Clause 34 amends Sections 6 and 7 of the FGC Act. I participated in the debates on that Act a few years ago. We welcome the clause, which will, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said, compel creditors—including all public sector creditors—to accept amended repayment terms, provide for a charging mechanism for debt advice, and underpin the instruction of the Statutory Debt Repayment Plan. But the Bill is short on detail. We hope to take this further in Committee. We assume and hope that the scheme will be modelled on the successful Scottish scheme.
More details will be needed in Committee about the timetable. Debt respite, which is being introduced in May, and debt repayment should go together. How are the powers to be framed and what role will Parliament have? What will be the arrangements for creditor agreements and the veto, if any, on the quantum of payments? Should there be a wider reform of debt collection practices, particularly the use of bailiffs by local government? The noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, raised this.
Clause 35 deals with successor accounts to Help to Save and inserts a new clause into the Savings (Government Contributions) Act 2017. This will provide regulation-making powers in respect of orphan funds or where no instructions have been provided to the director of savings. Although the Government sensibly propose to take powers for this eventuality, there are currently no plans to implement them. Why not? What circumstances would trigger action? We can return to this in Committee.
My other area of interest is in repealing the Victorian bills of sale legislation, which permits an egregious area of high-cost credit to continue and flourish. For those who are not aware of them, bills of sale are a way that individuals can use goods they already own as security for loans while retaining possession of them. The use of bills of sale has grown from fewer than 3,000 in 2001 to more than 30,000 in 2016. The numbers have dropped recently, but are probably in the order of 15,000 a year. They are mainly used for what are called “logbook loans”, where a borrower grants security over their vehicle. Borrowers may continue to use their vehicle while they keep up the repayments but, if they default, the vehicle can be repossessed without the protections that apply to hire purchase transactions and very few consumer credit concerns.
Bills of sale are currently governed by two Victorian statutes, the Bills of Sale Acts of 1878 and 1882. This legislation is archaic and wholly unsuited to the 21st century. In September 2014, HM Treasury asked the Law Commission to review the bills of sale legislation and to make recommendations for reform. A consultation paper was issued and a report was published in September 2016. In February 2017, the Government asked the Law Commission to draft legislation to implement its recommendations. These plans have now been shelved. Lenders and consumer groups agree that the law is in urgent need of reform. The current law creates hardship for borrowers and private purchasers. It imposes unnecessary burdens on lenders and restricts access to finance for unincorporated businesses and high net worth individuals.
The great majority of bills are issued for logbook loans, often taken out by borrowers who have difficulty in accessing other forms of credit. These borrowers are particularly vulnerable to inadequacies in the existing law. To make this clearer: the current APR in a recent advertisement for a car logbook loan was 450%.
The Law Commission says that the statutory form for a bill of sale, as set out in the 1882 Act, confuses borrowers rather than helps them to understand the consequences. The bills of sale Act provides only minimal protection to borrowers, and their goods can be repossessed if they default. The FCA has rules about this and logbook lenders must have policies to deal with default, but lenders differ radically in their approach to repossession. There have been complaints that some lenders use threats of repossession to demand unreasonable and unaffordable sums.
This is an area that should be cleaned up. Action should be taken. A simple way would be simply to repeal the Acts that I have mentioned and I will bring forward amendments in Committee to do that.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Hammond of Runnymede on an excellent maiden speech. I refer noble Lords to my entry in the register.
The EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which came into force on 1 January this year, is a free-trade agreement that does not facilitate the same access to the EU single market, for the UK’s financial services, as that which was available pre-Brexit. The EU passporting regime is founded on a 20-year history and there are nine different passports that cover financial services, from core banking services such as lending and deposit taking, through to asset management and more. Each passport is embedded in a particular EU directive or regulation, establishing the basic rules for that activity.
Your Lordships will be fully aware that, from 1 January, the passporting regime was no longer available to UK-based financial services firms. Consequently, the extent to which UK firms can continue to provide services to customers in the EEA or EU will depend on local law and local regulators’ expectations or a grant of equivalence from the European Commission. Conversely, EEA-based firms must now either have a UK-based operation, be able to rely on an exemption or exclusion or be acting in accordance with one of the UK’s temporary regimes in order to undertake regulated activity in the UK.
The removal of the passporting regime, together with the uncertainty duly generated, has resulted in financial firms operating in the UK relocating around 7,500 employees and more than £1.2 trillion-worth of assets from the UK to the EU. Over 40 financial firms have announced plans to make local hires for existing or newly created roles in Europe, equating to over 2,850 additional new jobs. There are alternatives to passporting, but they are complex and I do not have sufficient time available today to visit them in this debate. The European Commission can grant equivalence to a third country if it seems that the laws of that country have the same intention and produce more or less the same outcomes as the laws of the EU. However, the Commission can also unilaterally withdraw equivalence, should the situation change, within 30 days. It is my understanding that, in order to prevent the Commission from withdrawing equivalence at short notice on the grounds that the UK rules diverge materially from those of the EU, the UK is seeking a form of enhanced equivalence whereby both parties would regularly update each other on new regulations. Given that financial services were specifically excluded from the TCA, what efforts are the Government making to ensure that passporting rights—and, in the absence of those, equivalence rights—and access to the EU for the UK financial services industry are secured? Further, depending on the outcome of the discussions between the UK and the EU regarding equivalence, what additional measures are the Government proposing to take to support the UK financial services industry and reinforce its competitive advantage?
I am aware that the sector has a number of specific concerns, which include the temporary permissions regime and the capital markets union, with further concerns held by the UK funds industry and the UK insurance industry. My understanding is that, in November last, my right honourable friend the Chancellor announced that the UK proposed to recognise the equivalent status of EU financial services laws in a number of key areas, including those that I have just mentioned. By granting equivalence to EEA-member states in three of those areas, the UK acknowledged that insurers and reinsurers, established in the EEA, have the same capital and governance requirements as UK firms. This gesture of good will from the Government has, I believe, not yet been reciprocated by the European Commission, which has yet to take any action whatsoever towards granting similar rights. Are we surprised? Nothing changes.
This is a complex and substantial Bill, which aims to improve the UK regulatory framework for financial services following the end of the Brexit transition period and I support it. Doubtless it will receive much scrutiny during the stages to come, but we must remember that the other place gave it its support and we, too, should give it a fair wind.
Baroness Shafik (CB) (Maiden Speech) [V]
My Lords, it is a great honour to make my maiden speech today and I begin by thanking your Lordships and the staff of the House, who have been so welcoming. I am particularly grateful to my sponsors: the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell—Gus O’Donnell—who was both my mentor and manager in the Civil Service, and the noble Lord, Lord Stern—Nick Stern—who was my teacher and is now my colleague at the London School of Economics and Political Science. It has been a strange time to join this great House, but my induction has proceeded very capably through digital means and I thank Black Rod, the Garter and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for their guidance.
I was born in Alexandria in Egypt, although my connection to the UK began with my grandfather, who came on a scholarship to do his undergraduate and doctorate degrees at Imperial College in the 1920s. My father was born and raised in Notting Hill, before it was fashionable, and the family eventually returned to Egypt, where my grandfather retained a love of croquet and lawn bowling well into his 90s. My maternal grandfather studied in France and my mother was sent to a French Catholic school by her forward-thinking Muslim mother, who believed that everyone should learn about other people’s religions. I wish that they could all be here today.
My family’s prospects changed radically with the nationalisations in Egypt in the 1960s, when we lost most of our property and went from being well-off to being immigrants in the United States, where my father had studied. For my father, who had a PhD in Chemistry and little else, education was the only path to success. His mantra was, “They can take everything away from you except your education.” Those experiences —seeing how people’s fortunes could rise and fall because of economic shocks and the importance of education for social mobility—instilled in me a deep curiosity about the architecture of opportunity in a society. That curiosity led me to a career in economics that spanned the World Bank, the UK Department for International Development, the International Monetary Fund, the Bank of England and the London School of Economics.
While I spent 18 years in universities, most of my career has been in the trenches of policy-making in some of the poorest countries in the world and some of the richest. I have worked with politicians from across the political spectrum. In the UK I was a permanent secretary under both the Labour Government and the coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. In my years at the World Bank, DfID and the IMF, I travelled to over 100 countries, working with politicians of every imaginable political stripe. I saw clearly the benefits of sharing experience across countries.
I have had jobs that are primarily about making good things happen—lifting people out of poverty at the World Bank and DfID and spreading education at LSE. I have also had jobs that are primarily about preventing bad things from happening—fighting international financial crises at the IMF and maintaining monetary and financial stability at the Bank of England. Making good things happen is often more fun and one’s colleagues tend to be more optimistic. Organisations that prevent bad things tend to be populated by people whose job is to worry and look for risks, but their work is vital because, as the pandemic has shown us, bad events can swiftly destroy decades of progress.
These experiences are why I have chosen the Financial Services Bill for my maiden speech. It is first and foremost intended to prevent bad things from happening, as well as to create opportunities for new good things. It is the first important step in defining a distinct UK regulatory framework after leaving the EU and restoring the regulatory philosophy embedded in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, with improvements based on the lessons from the 2008 financial crisis. That philosophy is based on legislation setting out the policy objectives and operationally independent expert regulators translating that into technical regulation and supervision.
It is reassuring that the Government remain committed to the highest standards of regulation to avoid future bad events. Robust standards are essential for the stability and fairness which make our financial markets attractive to global investors and ensure consumers are protected. Chasing competitive advantage through lower regulatory standards and financial services is a chimera.
At the IMF, we used to describe the UK’s financial sector as a global public good because of its systemic importance to the world economy. The success of the UK’s regulatory framework has far-reaching consequences, and maintaining active engagement in global standard-setting, such as through the Basel Committee and the Financial Stability Board, is the best way of remaining the most global financial centre in the world. For example, when I was at the Bank of England it worked with central banks around the world to shape the first global standard for the foreign exchange market—the largest financial market in the world with a turnover of $6.6 trillion every day, over 40% of which occurs in London.
There is a huge opportunity, as many noble Lords have said today, for the UK to set global standards on green finance, from mandatory disclosure and the development of green investment products to defining regulatory approaches to climate-related stress-testing, which will be done for the first time this year. The return of full independence in setting the regulatory framework for financial services to the UK also provides an opportunity to rethink the framework for accountability and scrutiny in a system that relies heavily on experts. I have to confess, I like experts. I know Members of this House fall comfortably into that category, and the expertise in this House adds enormous value to the legislative process. But as the noble Lord, Lord King, has said, experts must resist the pressure for an illusion of certainty. It is best to listen to many views and subject expert judgment to challenge.
I hope that I can add my voice to the well-informed and lively debates in this House and bring an especially global perspective to our deliberations. Hopefully, we can prevent many bad things happening as well as enable many good things to progress. I look forward to working with all of your Lordships in the future.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a privilege to be the first to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Shafik, on her charming and hugely impressive maiden speech. This debate shows the House is fortunate to have the addition of not one but two real heavyweights to our number. I am sure I speak for the whole House when I welcome the noble Baroness and say that we look forward to her continuing to contribute her extensive expertise and experience—national and international—to the work of our House.
This is a large Bill and, in view of the significance of the financial services sector in the UK, a very important one. I declare my interests as set out in the register and as a former member of your Lordships’ EU Financial Affairs Sub-Committee—one who worked under the splendid leadership of the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, I want to direct my remarks to the part of the Bill relating to the regulation of investment firms, in particular, the EU markets in financial instruments directive, popularly known as MiFID. The current directive, MiFID II, came into force in the United Kingdom on 3 January 2018. Its provisions have been widely criticised, not only in the UK but throughout the EU, as excessively burdensome and not sufficiently distinguishing between market operators on grounds of size or function. Now the UK is responsible for its own regulation, which is welcome, but using the powers to be conferred by this Bill the Financial Conduct Authority will be able to introduce a more tailored approach under the title of an “investment firms prudential regime”. It is also welcome that the FCA has already circulated a discussion paper inviting comments on its approach.
One area in which MiFID II produced unforeseen adverse consequences—at least, unforeseen by its proponents, for it was foreseen by others—was the treatment of investment houses’ research costs. It was an aim of MiFID II to prevent the financing of research services from trading commissions, because it was believed that this would remove an incentive to unnecessary churning of investments as a means of providing funds for research. This was a laudable objective, but it was predicted during consultation on the directive that a complete ban on the commission-sharing regime would cause fund managers to cut their spending on research and benefit competitors outside the EU, who were not subject to similar restriction. It would also discourage new businesses seeking to establish themselves in the market. This has, indeed, been the result.
An alternative suggestion was that the aim of greater transparency could be achieved by disclosing to clients in advance fixed, budgeted amounts for research. This was adopted in MiFID but not considered sufficient in itself; further onerous reporting was required. This is but one example of the competitive burdens imposed by MiFID II. It is to be hoped that they will be mitigated in the UK’s new investment firms prudential regime, so as to combine transparency about costs with removing disadvantages suffered by UK firms in comparison with competitors in the United States and the Far East.
The FCA’s consultation on the new regime coincides with two other developments that are currently under way. One is the discussions being conducted with the EU, and due to be completed by April, about a new framework for equivalence between the UK and EU following Brexit. The second is that, like the UK, the EU is itself reviewing and preparing modifications to its regulatory regimes, covering not only MiFID but other matters covered by the Bill, such as the capital requirements directive implementing Basel III and the anti-money laundering directive. The UK’s discussions with the EU about equivalence are taking place on ground that is shifting beneath our feet. Such developments in regulation in the UK and the EU will, and inevitably should, continue as financial markets continue to develop.
If anything were needed to persuade both sides in the present UK-EU negotiations that it is in our mutual interest to work in close consultation with each other, it is a report last week that in the absence of UK trading platforms for derivatives being given EU market access, business in euro-denominated interest rate swaps fell sharply in London during the first fortnight in January. At the same time, it has doubled not in the EU financial hubs, where it also fell, but in New York. It is to be hoped that the EU can be persuaded that a restrictive approach to the UK is contrary to not only the UK’s interests but its own.
The United Kingdom has long been a leader in international financial regulation, as shown by our pivotal role in the 2007 financial crisis and its aftermath. We must see to it that this Bill and its implementation continues to allow that leadership, not only in the UK’s interests but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Shafik, said, in the world’s.
Lord Hendy (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Hammond of Runnymede, and the noble Baroness, Lady Shafik, on their excellent maiden speeches. I agree with my noble friend Lord Sikka and other noble Lords who have pointed out that the Bill does not go far enough to secure proper governance, financial integrity and measures against corruption. The current state of the law is a blot on the finance industry in the United Kingdom, which has seen outrageous criminal conduct on a massive scale go unpunished and sometimes uninvestigated. I am speaking of money laundering, fraud, false accounting and the like. I have in mind the collapse of BCCI, the Libor scandal, HSBC’s money laundering and other cases referred to by noble Lords. The case for a public inquiry into the finance industry is now incontrovertible.
A particular problem has been the current state of UK corporate liability law, the “directing mind” test, which effectively puts large companies and financial institutions beyond the reach of criminal prosecutors for many economic crimes other than bribery and tax evasion. The charities Finance Innovation Lab and Spotlight on Corruption have highlighted this in briefings, and I am grateful for their elucidation of the problem and their proposed solution.
This is a rule of law issue. An amendment to the Bill is needed to make it a criminal offence to facilitate an economic crime or to fail to take reasonable, necessary steps to prevent an economic crime. Individuals should be personally liable, and so should corporate entities in a sufficient relationship with a guilty individual to found vicarious liability under the ordinary principles of the common law. This would be a straightforward yet vital step to bring fraud, money laundering and false accounting into line with bribery and tax evasion. It would bring the UK into line with equivalent laws which exist and are used, sometimes with spectacular results, in the United States and the EU. Given the well-reported increase in fraud cases during the current pandemic, this is an urgent matter.
By the same token, since Brexit and the failure to secure any deal in relation to financial services, the need to restore the reputation of the finance industry and highlight its effective regulation by passing such an amendment is particularly pressing. It is understood that the Law Commission is currently reviewing corporate crime, but this Bill presents an unmissable opportunity now to create such an offence, and I hope the Minister will be able to tell us an amendment on these lines will be introduced.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hammond of Runnymede, and the noble Baroness, Lady Shafik, on their excellent maiden speeches. I look forward to the important contributions they will both undoubtedly make to the House.
On Monday 9 November last, the Chancellor made a Statement to the House of Commons in which he set out the Government’s vision for financial services. He pledged, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, reminded us, to put
“the full weight of private sector innovation … behind the critical global effort to tackle climate change and protect the environment.”—[Official Report, Commons, 9/11/20; col. 621.]
Just two hours later, his colleague, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, John Glen, got to his feet to introduce the Second Reading of this Bill. In his opening speech, which lasted over 25 minutes, he did not refer to the climate and ecological emergency once. He made no mention of green finance, climate risk disclosure or the critical role the financial services industry will have to play if we are seriously to tackle climate change.
The omission of any reference to climate change, replicated by the Minister this afternoon, was not the result of an oversight on the Economic Secretary’s part. Far from it; it was simply a logical consequence of the fact that the Bill does absolutely nothing to address the climate emergency we face. The Economic Secretary had a number of answers for this failure when he got around to the matter in Committee. First, he argued that these issues were not relevant for discussion, as they were not directly related to the Bill—a strange and circular argument, as their absence from the Bill was precisely the complaint he was addressing. Secondly, he argued that the regulators were making progress on climate-related issues and we should let them get on with it. Finally, he said:
“The Bill grants the Treasury a power to specify further matters in the accountability framework at a later date, which could be used to add a requirement to explicitly have regard to green issues in the prudential framework, if appropriate … I can assure the Committee that the Treasury will carefully consider a green ‘have regard’ in the future.”—[Official Report, Commons, 24/11/20; col. 157.]
Essentially, he was telling Parliament, “It’s not for you to worry your little heads about these things, and to ensure that you don’t have to, the Bill will take the powers away from Parliament in this regard and vest them in the Treasury and the regulators, who know best.”
We on the Liberal Democrat Benches do not think that they know best. History does not cause us to put much faith in the willingness of the Treasury, or of unaccountable regulators, to act. Nor does it give us any faith in their ability to determine the appropriateness, or otherwise, of action on such critical matters for our planet. We agree with the Chancellor that financial services have a key role to play in tackling climate change, but we believe that it is for Parliament to determine that role. Accordingly, we will bring amendments forward in Committee to ensure that the Bill does exactly that. They will do this, first, by requiring the Prudential Regulation Authority to have regard to climate-related financial risk when setting capital adequacy requirements and, secondly, by ensuring that credit-rating agencies have to take climate risk into account in setting credit ratings. Thirdly, they would bring forward the date when the recommendations of the task force on climate-related disclosure will be mandatory from 2025 to 2023.
We will also seek amendments to ensure that, in setting general rules, the FCA has regard to the climate-related financial risks to which FCA investment firms are exposed and that the FCA, in setting Part 9C rules, and the PRA, in setting capital requirement regulation rules, have regard to the UK’s domestic and international climate obligations. I look forward to working on these issues with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and other members of Peers for the Planet, the excellent organisation which she chairs.
I welcome the lead that the Government have taken in setting the net-zero target. I applaud the Treasury for moving on the TCFD recommendations, so far as they have gone, and for their positive words on green finance. However, the awful truth is that action in every respect of our response to the climate emergency is glacially and catastrophically slow. We are way off line to meet the Climate Change Act’s original 80% reduction target, let alone the revised net-zero one. There is a time when the talk of distant targets for which none of us will be held accountable has to end and the activity and action to meet them has to start. That time is now. The climate crisis is not something that might happen in some distant future if we do not get our act together. It is happening right now. Just ask those on the front line of the crisis; ask the people of the small island states who live with the prospect of being literally wiped off the map. Ask the farmers facing ever more erratic weather patterns and deteriorating soil conditions in Africa or South Asia. Ask householders in the UK who are becoming ever more susceptible to flood risk; ask the firefighters in California or New South Wales.
As we speak, the world is on course for three degrees of warming. The devastation that would cause is beyond contemplation. We know the threat that we face, and what we have to do to mitigate it, but that does not guarantee that we will do it. A global pandemic was number one on the Cabinet Office’s risk register. We knew it would happen one day, yet it seemed so far off that, when it suddenly arrived, we met it almost completely unprepared. We cannot afford to do the same with climate change. So I urge the Government to use this Bill to start, however modestly, to match their fine rhetoric with action and to ensure that the financial services industry is able to play its full part in combating climate change.
Lord Jopling (Con) [V]
My Lords, I begin by drawing attention to my interests in the register. The House has heard two outstanding maiden speeches today. I doubt the House of Lords has seen the introduction of two individuals with such extraordinarily wide qualifications for many years, and we certainly welcome them very much.
The Government have told us that one objective of the Bill concerning financial services is to promote openness between the United Kingdom and internal markets. Obviously that is a laudable notion, which is important to the UK because our financial services are in many ways the golden nugget of the UK economy. I want to ask the Minister to give us an assessment of how such an aim is achievable and to report on progress over the past few years, and particularly recently, on achieving that greater openness. To what extent since Brexit are other countries also showing preparedness to negotiate towards that goal?
For a start, I cannot imagine that the European Union will resist the temptation to shift some of the pre-eminence of the City of London to Paris and Frankfurt. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Reid, and my noble friend Lord Bridges. So far as the EU is concerned, it will be a case of holding on to what we have got and trying to avoid the power of the City and British financial services ebbing away to the continent. However, that is not the main point that I want to raise.
I am concerned at the prospect of opening up the financial markets between the United Kingdom, the United States and others. Some years ago, when the European Union was negotiating the TTIP agreement with the United States, I went on a Select Committee visit to Washington as part of our inquiry into the progress of the TTIP negotiations. Of course, reflecting on the strength of the City and the United Kingdom’s powerful financial services sector, one of Britain’s main aims, while we were still members of the EU, was to enhance the prospects of the pre-eminence of the City within those negotiations with the United States. Indeed, one of our principal aims was to open up the financial sector between the US and the EU, as it was then. Now, after Brexit, that must obviously continue to be a major aim of the UK but all of us who went on that delegation to Washington, some years ago now, were seriously shocked, when meeting the United States Treasury at that time, to be told in the firmest possible way that there was no way at all that the United States was prepared to open up the financial services sector within the confines of the TTIP negotiations. In strident, almost offensive terms, we were told to forget it.
That is very concerning for the future. I have heard no evidence since then that the attitude of the United States has softened so far as financial services are concerned. I have two questions to the Minister, which I hope he will refer to in his wind-up; if he cannot do so, perhaps he will be good enough to write to me. First, has there been any softening in the attitude of the United States to protect its financial services sector and open it up to the UK or others? Secondly, does he see any prospect of fulfilling the Government’s aim of opening up these markets, especially within the United States?
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I pay a real and sincere tribute to the two maiden speakers, the noble Lord, Lord Hammond of Runnymede, and the noble Baroness, Lady Shafik. I found their speeches really useful and interesting, and they will make major contributions to the House in the future.
I shall be brief but I want to say a few words about three items. The first concerns Clause 34, on the debt respite scheme. This is much welcomed and we can leave the detail for Committee. It was useful to hear the Minister confirm that priority debts include council tax arrears, energy arrears and benefit overpayments—in other words, broadly speaking, public sector government debts.
Such debts can be a nightmare for people and get worse when, with the best of intentions, attempts are made to repay and are then frustrated because the odd creditor or two believes that more should be repaid quicker. I certainly had experience of that when I advised constituents in the 1970s and 1980s. I got their debt sorted out, but then either a creditor that I did not know about or one of the existing creditors decided that they wanted to speed things up. The Money Advice Trust has provided a really useful and supportive brief on Clause 34.
We now have Covid in play, which, by common consent, has affected poorer families financially more than others, besides the million self-employed people who have not received any help from the Government, many of whom will have taken on debts. Will such debts be covered by Clause 34?
An affordable timeframe is the one element that can give people hope, so this clause is a very big incentive for people to enter into agreements to repay debts in full and not simply ignore them, letting them build up and hoping that something will turn up. It can prevent an escalation of the problem, which of course is a worse nightmare. The key, according to the Money Advice Trust, is the timetable. The mental pressure on people with debts is enormous. Having a timetable which is affordable is key. My question is whether this is a priority for the Treasury, as it is needed as soon as possible.
Secondly, I would like to touch on the issue of economic crime. The Bill—I wrote my speech before my noble friend Lord Reid spoke—appears to be a parliamentary Christmas tree, on which we can hang new bits of legislation. The one I would cite is that regarding the prevention of economic crime. Spotlight on Corruption has made it clear that there is problem. The rules for holding large companies and financial institutions to account for economic crime are unfair and ineffective, and they undermine good corporate governance.
Prosecutors have requested that laws on fraud, false accounting and money laundering be strengthened in line with the laws on bribery and tax evasion. The Commons Treasury Select Committee is in favour of that, and over 70% of those responding to a consultation —last year, I think, or the year before—said that current rules inhibit holding companies to account. It is also in line with previous Conservative Party manifestos, and I am sure, although I have not gone back to check the text today, that it is consistent with the seminal speech that David Cameron made on the issue. I will leave it there, as it is a detail for Committee.
In a way, my final point follows what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans said. I have never favoured Gibraltar becoming a brass-plate economy. It is true that we more or less passed it over to Spain after Brexit, so it might well now be a bigger income generator. I have no interest to declare—I had two private holidays there in 1977 and 1979 as a gesture of solidarity when the Spanish closed the border—but the fact is that there are some serious issues to debate given the amount of the Bill that relates to Gibraltar and the fact that it is becoming a bigger brass-plate economy than it has been in the past. This will need further exploration in Committee.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as stated in the register. I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Hammond of Runnymede on his excellent and entertaining maiden speech, and the noble Baroness, Lady Shafik, on her most inspirational one. I thank my noble friend the Minister for introducing this important Bill, which will help to ensure that the City of London remains the pre-eminent global financial centre. For more than 100 years the City has rightly enjoyed a reputation as the safest centre in the world in which to conduct financial business, and the old maxim “My word is my bond” continues to reflect the high level of trust accorded to financial firms operating in this country.
Many commentators have lamented the fact that the financial services chapters of the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU are thin. This partly reflects the fact that the EU’s single market in financial services is only partially developed, although in recent years the European Commission has made progress in its drive to harmonise financial regulation across the bloc.
We have certainly influenced the development and formulation of this regulation, but we have had to work within the EU’s Napoleonic-style framework. We therefore have cumbersome and bureaucratic rulebooks, which explains why the fastest-growing departments of banks and other regulated companies have been compliance and legal departments, rather than those devoted to innovation and the development of new products, and those that actually conduct business and earn revenues.
Sometimes we have been overruled by excessively cautious Commission technocrats and by the European regulators, especially since the pendulum swung too far towards tighter regulation after the financial markets crash of 2008. I shall give just two examples of this: first, the whole of the AIFMD, which is disproportionate and expensive for many smaller asset management companies, driving some offshore and forcing others to merge or discontinue operations. The second example is Solvency II, which prescribes excessive capital requirements for UK insurers. The Treasury has said that it intends to change the rules to make them less prescriptive and less complex, and to increase the ability of regulators to apply supervisory judgment. Can the Minister confirm that this Bill will enable that to happen?
Miles Celic, of TheCityUK, told the EU Services Sub-Committee, on which I am privileged to serve under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, that negotiations on post-Brexit financial services arrangements are being driven by political concerns rather than regulatory or legal issues, and that equivalence is becoming increasingly politicised. Does the Minister expect that the MoU will be completed by the end of March, and does he expect the EU to have made any further equivalence assessments by that time?
I am not surprised that the EU is unwilling to grant equivalence decisions in many areas, because we have rightly made it clear that we intend to diverge from the EU model. I would encourage the Government to be bold and to develop a plan to move in an orderly manner to a completely different regulatory system, based on principles rather than prescriptive statutory regulations.
I was privileged to serve on the Joint Committee on Financial Services and Markets, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, in 1999. We had much discussion on whether the FSA should have a competitiveness objective. It was ultimately decided that the need to minimise adverse effects on competition should be supported merely by a principle, listed fifth out of five. The PRA today has a secondary competition objective, which is subordinate to its two primary objectives—to promote the safety and soundness of the firms it regulates, and to protect holders of insurance policies.
The FCA has been charged, since 2015, as the third of three operational objectives, with the promotion of effective competition in the interests of consumers. Does my noble friend think that the promotion of competitiveness of financial markets is too low down the priority list? Ultimately, as Adam Smith argued, the invisible hand of competition, and the eradication of anti-competitive behaviour, will surely accord with consumers’ best interests.
The Treasury’s phase 2 consultation paper on the future regulatory framework review suggests that the Government are responding positively to powerful evidence from the coalface, but I question any acceptance of the argument that an excessive concern for competitiveness contributed to the financial crisis. I believe that both regulators should have a clear, unqualified objective to promote the international competitiveness of financial markets. This should be an important part of the Government’s agenda for global Britain. The Minister told your Lordships that the Bill has three objectives, but none of them is competitiveness. Does he not agree that the Bill’s second objective, which is described as
“openness between the UK and international markets”,
should be “the competitiveness of the UK’s international markets”? My noble friend Lord Hill of Oareford’s review of the Stock Exchange’s listing rules should also help in this regard.
Clause 36 is especially welcome in handing the damaging PRIIPs regulation and the troublesome KIDs to the regulators. They should also deal with the corresponding parts of MiFID II. I greatly welcome the direction of travel of the future regulatory framework. It is, however, necessary to make arrangements for the proper accountability to Parliament of the regulators before they start to exercise their new powers. Can the Minister tell the House how the Government intend that that should be done? I look forward to other noble Lords’ contributions and to my noble friend’s reply.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating both the noble Lord, Lord Hammond, and the noble Baroness, Lady Shafik, on their maiden speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Hammond, showed the insight and intelligence that has characterised his approach to the challenges of the past few years. I particularly welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Shafik, to our House and fondly remember working with her when she was Permanent Secretary at DfID and deputy managing director of IMF and I was chair of the International Development Committee. I look forward to hearing more from her in the future. I am sure her contributions will always be well received.
There is no doubt that as a member of the EU the UK provided the leadership in financial services regulation because of the leading role of the City of London, which was the main capital and euro exchange market for the EU and beyond. But how UK financial services will fare from now is debated. It is argued, I suggest with justification, that the concentration of expertise, innovation and flexibility that characterises UK financial services will ensure that it continues to play a leading role. However, it will be challenging, for how will it maintain its pre-eminence if EU business ebbs away? That means servicing the EU financial services market from the UK and enabling firms and individuals located outside the UK to access its services through the UK.
Scale and expertise have been key factors in the UK’s pre-eminence but, as many people have observed, other centres will seek to pick up business from London, and the scale of New York may enable it to consolidate top spot. I have no doubt that the larger players in the sector will look after themselves, and that will not necessarily be to the benefit of UK plc. It has been said that the feared exit of jobs has not happened on any scale—to which the answer has to be, “Yet”. Without equivalence in key sectors, businesses and jobs will migrate—not that thousands of UK-based personnel will necessarily leave, but jobs that would have been created here will be created in other EU centres, such as Dublin, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Paris and Malta. It will take time and the key question is, during that time, how will the UK develop to maintain its world-leading role and will the Bill help or hinder that process?
Having served in former times on the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee, and until recently on the House’s Financial Services Sub-Committee, I am well aware of the importance of effective financial regulation and scrutiny. The light-touch approach of the Labour Government contributed directly to the financial crash of 2008 and the blurred separation, or lack of it, between retail and investment banking brought the economy to its knees and threatened the savings of millions. Let us hope that the Bill does not open the door to too light a touch or to cavalier regulation to promote competition and attract business.
Financial regulation is a matter of balance. If it is too tight, it may stifle innovation, but if it is too loose, it may lead to financial disaster and reputational destruction. In the EU, we not only had the benefit of the scrutiny committee of the UK Parliament, but the substantial resources of the European Parliament, in which British MPs played a key role, not least my noble friend Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted. So what assurance can the Minister give that under this Bill regulation will be transparent and subject to effective scrutiny? Will the Government support the creation of a dedicated financial services committee with the resources to staff it effectively? If they do not, any financial failings in future will lie squarely at the Government’s door.
Speaking as I do on Scottish affairs for the Liberal Democrats, I remind the House of the importance of the financial services sector to the economy in Scotland. It is valued at £13 billion—or 9.4% of Scotland’s gross value added—employing between 150,000 and 160,000 people in more than 2,000 businesses. Particularly, it accounts for 24% of UK jobs in life assurance and 13% of all UK banking jobs. While Edinburgh has the greatest concentration, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Perth also record substantial employment in this sector.
Scottish Financial Enterprise, which represents the sector, is bullish about the future, claiming that Scotland is a sought-after location for delivering financial services. Without Brexit, there would certainly seem no reason why the sector should not continue to grow, as much of it delivers cost effectively and reputationally to the domestic market. However, Betsy Williamson, the chief executive specialist recruiter for the sector’s Core-Asset Consulting, says recruitment to the sector has dropped and that key jobs are being relocated or created outside of the UK. Aberdeen Standard has opened an office in Dublin and transferred £17 billion of assets there, and no doubt others are considering or doing the same. Today’s FT shows how many goods-based businesses are struggling with red tape and either deciding to abandon exporting to the EU as uneconomic or planning to transfer some of their activities to the EU.
Financial services are evaluating what is going to happen to them. Some have already moved, and others will. If we get this wrong, the trickle could become a flood. So even if you were bullish about the UK’s prospects, we are going to have to run harder to replace the revenue and jobs that are leaving and then try to grow new opportunities. Will there be enough scope for new businesses to replace these jobs and then add net growth? Will this Bill help or hinder? Will our regulation be lighter or tighter than the EU? Either way, will it be transparent enough and subject to adequate scrutiny to maintain resilience and confidence in the system? A lot is riding on this Bill. When people say it is technical, they mean that most people do not understand it, and that is exactly when things can go wrong.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, first I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hammond of Runnymede on his brilliant maiden speech. I look forward very much to his future contributions to our debates. I am delighted that he has joined us and can bring us his tremendous expertise as a brilliant addition to your Lordships’ House—as indeed is the noble Baroness, Lady Shafik. I would also like to welcome her, particularly as a colleague from the London School of Economics, where I am currently visiting professor in practice and emeritus governor. We have been privileged to hear two such excellent maiden speeches this afternoon.
Like so many others, I warmly welcome the trade and co-operation agreement reached for goods a few weeks ago as we left the transition period. But this Bill is of significant importance for our economy, as no deal was agreed for financial services—which accounts for such a significant part of our economy. I appreciate the Government’s stated intention to secure a memorandum of understanding on financial services with the EU by, I believe, March 2021, and I ask my noble friend how this is progressing. Have any decisions been reached about areas in which it will be considered appropriate to retain regulatory alignment? What negotiations are ongoing with stakeholders in connection with this? I also believe that the Treasury has recently launched a review of Solvency II, so I ask my noble friend when this review and the wider review of financial services will publish findings and conclusions.
I am particularly interested in the potential for reforms of Solvency II rules, which could pose an attractive opportunity for UK firms which provide long-term savings, investment products and insurances to free them from the straitjacket imposed by Solvency II. It was always rather less appropriate for UK firms than for those on the continent, which has a much more bond-oriented traditional financial culture, rather than the UK approach, which has always more readily embraced and understood the benefits of equity investment, early stage in venture capital firms, and other diversified asset classes with higher expected return potential, and can have greater impact on supporting or boosting economic growth.
Freeing these financial firms to invest more in green assets, infrastructure and low-carbon housing projects will help, as we are aiming to move towards a net-zero economy. I support the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Cousins, and the noble Lord, Lord Reid, that financial services regulations and risk assessments should take account of environmental risks and means of mitigation.
Clearly, the Treasury would like to move towards a more principles-based approach from a rules-based approach. But, as other noble Lords have said, this opens many new challenges and risks. Could my noble friend, in support of the words of my noble friend Lord Sharpe, say what analysis has been done to assess whether our regulators are equipped to cope with the significant transfer of power this Bill’s measures would involve?
My noble friend, in his excellent introduction to this Bill, stated that the Government believe that regulators have the technical expertise and market understanding necessary to exercise the new powers and will be guided by the FSMA financial objectives. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, explained the serious shortcomings of the FSMA, and I share her concerns.
In addition, it has long seemed to me that the FCA has either insufficient powers or insufficient capacity to protect consumers against poor practice and products or services that have too often proved damaging to customers, who find themselves without protection and, in certain cases, without recourse to compensation. I urge the Government, for the future of financial services and consumer confidence in this industry, to require greater emphasis on proactive regulation, which anticipates problems, rather than try to clear up failures after the event.
Could my noble friend explain to the House whether he believes regulators will have enhanced accountability to Parliament, as called for by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and others? To what extent does he believe they will have greater scrutiny to help legislators to assess whether financial services operate as safely as possible?
Of course, the aims of supporting financial providers, financial stability or firm competitiveness are important, as set out in this Bill. However, I have particular concerns about consumer protection, which is so directly important to ordinary individuals and families across the population. I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, that we should take the opportunity to help those stuck with unmanageable debt, particularly in light of the Covid pandemic. I support the debt respite scheme rollout and continuation, as well as calls for this Bill to include measures that will impose far more effective controls on high-cost credit promotions. I was interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, about bills of sale. I also support the aims of the help to save initiative.
Finally, I add my voice to those calling for much greater emphasis on green issues in financial services regulation and for proper parliamentary scrutiny of this critical issue to protect our planet and mitigate the impacts of climate change.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hammond of Runnymede and the noble Baroness, Lady Shafik, on their excellent maiden speeches. I look forward to their future contributions in your Lordships’ House.
For the last nine years, I have largely sat on the sidelines on financial services legislation, as I was on the board of a major bank. Now liberated from that, I am enjoying putting my financial services legislation anorak back on. I remind the House of my financial interests, as declared in the register.
The Government have described this Bill as a portfolio Bill, which is a fancy name for what is not much more than a motley collection of topics that have little in common apart from fitting under a financial services umbrella. This Bill certainly gives us no strategic insights into the future of financial services. That said, I broadly welcome this Bill, as it deals with a number of items in a sensible, pragmatic way.
Financial services legislation is very complex. Since FiSMA was enacted over 20 years ago, there have been numerous revisions, some of which, such as the Financial Services Act 2012, were significant. Huge amounts of EU law have been imported and we can expect more changes as we embark upon our post-Brexit life. We are getting close to consolidation being essential if our financial services legislation is to be accessible. Can the Minister say whether the Government accept the need for consolidation?
My principal reservation about this Bill concerns the considerable new rule-making powers that are being conferred on the PRA and the FCA, and I agree with much of what other noble Lords have already said on this. I find it a bit odd that the Government have chosen to go down this route ahead of the outcome of the consultation on the future regulatory framework review, which is still open. This looks like another example of the Treasury mind being closed to challenge through consultation. We are somewhat used to this, but familiarity does not make it acceptable.
More substantively, the Government have made a good case for the rules to be set by the people with the best technical knowledge, but they have not, I am afraid, made a case for the quality or quantity of accountability alongside that. In particular, I am unpersuaded that adding a list of “have regards” against which the PRA or FCA must report when they consult on rules amounts to a significant addition to the accountability framework. The House will know that I have been steadfast in my commitment to our exit from the EU, but it was never my understanding that taking back control of our laws would mean less parliamentary control and oversight than before. The Bill proposes to hand significant rule-making powers to the PRA and the FCA without any noticeable Parliamentary oversight. Ad hoc scrutiny through the existing committees in both Houses is no substitute for regular and structured parliamentary involvement. I hope that the Government will engage with those of us who want to find a practical solution to this accountability deficit.
Before leaving this topic, I would say that we need to look carefully at the new “have regards” when we get to Committee. I share the exciting vision of the future prospects for financial services that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer outlined in his November statement, but I do not see that fully reflected in the Bill. Like many noble Lords who have spoken today, I believe that international competitiveness needs to be firmly embedded into our regulatory arrangements and the statutes that govern that. I particularly welcome my noble friend Lord Hammond’s enthusiasm for this, which goes a long way, I have to say, towards offsetting his lack of enthusiasm for Brexit in his former life.
Finally, on tough legacy contracts that use Libor, I completely support the powers in Clauses 14 and 15 that allow the FCA to make arrangements for legacy contracts. It is good that the Government have accepted the very real practical issues involved in dealing with a relatively small number of debt instruments. There are, however, two outstanding issues relating to continuity of contract and safe harbour. I know the Treasury is well aware of these issues. I will save arguing the detail of them until we get to Committee, but I expect to table amendments aimed at giving the UK equivalent protections to those being drafted for the US market.
Financial services are a major part of our economy and we must allow this sector to flourish now that we are unshackled from the EU. Strong regulation will remain essential but we need all players, regulators and industry alike, to build the UK as the undisputed leading global financial centre. I hope that the House will remember that as we scrutinise the Bill through its remaining stages.
Baroness Sheehan (LD) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hammond, and the noble Baroness, Lady Shafik, on two of the most enjoyable maiden speeches that I have heard. I look forward to their future contributions in the House.
My contribution to today’s debate will very much reflect the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, my noble friend Lord Oates and a couple of other noble Lords who have mentioned climate change. Just yesterday we heard of an ingenious global survey carried out by a UN agency, the UNDP, to gauge opinion from around the world on climate change. The findings were really quite fascinating. The first thing to note is that by placing polls in mobile gaming networks the UNDP was able to get over 500,000 youngsters under 18 to take part. They are the ones who will have to live with the consequences of our action—or indeed inaction—today, and therefore their voices and opinions must be heard, especially by us here in the UK, who, at this crucial juncture of make-or-break climate policy, hold the leadership of the biggest opportunity, in COP 26, to steer the global tanker towards a clearer, greener horizon.
In this biggest-ever climate poll, almost two-thirds of the over 1.2 million people surveyed worldwide said that climate change is a global emergency and urged our leaders to greater action to address the crisis in all sectors. For instance, in eight of the 10 surveyed countries with the highest emissions from the power sector, the majority backed more renewable energy; in four of the five countries with the highest emissions from land use change, the majority supported conserving forests and land; and nine out of 10 of the countries with the most urbanised populations backed more use of clean electric cars and buses and bicycles.
Britain, as it reshapes its investment and legislative landscape post Brexit, in the same year in which it hosts the seminal COP 26 climate summit, must embrace its mantle of climate leadership. Therefore every Act of Parliament dated 2021 must acknowledge somewhere within its makeup that we recognise the importance of our actions today for the generations that will follow us. Environmental, social and governance—ESG— considerations must be pervasive through all Bills, especially the one that underpins our economic and financial well-being and stability and which will define the big future investment decisions that will affect us all for decades to come.
The sad fact is that, despite an ever-increasing number of commitments from banks and other financial sector actors to align their activities with the Paris agreement, recent research has found that, for example, lending to fossil-fuel-linked investments by 35 of the biggest global banks continues to rise: $736 billion in 2019, up from $700 billion the year before. The movement is in the wrong direction.
Part of the reason why financial institutions are not moving fast enough to help to prevent catastrophic climate change is that regulators and policy-making departments do not sufficiently consider climate and environmental impacts. For example, in the Treasury’s impact assessment for the Bill before us today, greenhouse gas impacts are listed as “not applicable” even though significant changes to how investment funds behave, the centrepiece of the Bill, are bound to have such impacts. That is unacceptable.
I will be lending my support to amendments working towards ensuring that regulations and financial sector policy-makers take climate change, our natural capital and the UK’s international commitments on these issues into account when setting regulations and making policy. Of course a stronger indication of government policy intent towards meeting their net-zero target would be the imposition of a green capital requirement, a move that I would welcome, as I would a requirement for the Government to review the impact of the Bill on meeting the Paris agreement commitments. I look forward to seeing those amendments.
Lord Garnier (Con) (V)
My Lords, this is a lengthy Bill, and although in some respects it is politically uncontroversial, there are many points of technical detail that the House will want to scrutinise closely. I can think of no better people to assist in our deliberations on the Bill than the two maiden speakers. My noble friend Lord Hammond of Runnymede made a superb speech. I hope that, having briefly sipped from the glass of independence in 2019 after nine years in the Cabinet, he will not lose the habit of free thinking, even though he has retaken the Conservative Party Whip. The noble Baroness, Lady Shafik, also made her maiden speech today. Her contribution to the study and practice of economics in a whole host of financial and academic institutions is inspiring, so I look forward to learning a good deal from her, as well as from my noble friend, in the future.
I am intervening in this debate to highlight a matter that is not in the Bill, but it ought to be. It is a subject that the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, have touched on, and I gather that my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots may also speak about; namely, the need to expand the criminal law concept of failure to prevent crime, not least corporate financial crime. I have been thinking about the law on financial crime since the 2008 financial crash. I was the shadow Attorney-General for two years before the coalition Government came into office, and then the Solicitor-General in government. I developed the deferred prosecution agreement, or DPA regime. It was enacted through the Crime and Courts Act 2013. It is a regime that pragmatically and justly deals with corporate financial crime under the supervision of the courts. I will not go into the detail of the system now but, if I may say so, it works. I declare an interest not only as the Minister who introduced the system into this jurisdiction, but also as a practising barrister who, now long out of Government, appears in DPA cases.
DPAs are not, however, the end of the story. Financial crime is often thought of as the crime that does no real harm: no one gets killed, no bones are broken and there is no blood on the carpet. Equally, corporate offending is sometimes hard to visualise. But corporate crime and financial crime both cause great harm to people, to communities, to the economy and to our national reputation as a safe place to do business. Both are all too common and need to be investigated and dealt with effectively by the public authorities here and abroad. Financial crime is often, by the very nature of modern financial services, both international in its scope and committed electronically through corporate structures, albeit with a human mind and will behind it.
I hope, with other noble Lords, to expand on this theme in Committee, but for present purposes I shall say only this: Section 7 of the Bribery Act 2010 creates a corporate offence of failing to prevent bribery. It has been deployed successfully on several occasions and provides a model which can and should be replicated in other areas of financial crime. Furthermore, the Criminal Finances Act 2017 introduced corporate criminal offences of failure to prevent criminal facilitation of tax evasion. I suggest we should by this Bill expand the failure to prevent regime to cover at least some of the 50 or so financial or economic crimes that are available to be dealt with by DPAs listed in Schedule 17 to the Crime and Courts Act 2013.
Finally, we must reform the law relating to corporate criminal liability. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, is right and I profoundly agree with him. I have been writing and speaking about the need to do this for years. The concept of the directing mind and will as the basis for corporate criminal liability, which the Americans abandoned before the First World War, worked for the small family businesses of the 19th century, but is now long outdated. Today, companies can operate in many different countries with national, regional and global boards and with hundreds of thousands of employees engaging in multi-jurisdictional trade in goods and services. Locating the directing mind and will of these vast conglomerates is difficult, if not impossible, and the current law does not reflect the reality of modern business life. It is an affront to common sense and justice. As in the United States, we need to introduce vicarious liability into our corporate criminal law.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl)
My Lords, first, I apologise for being slightly late when the noble Lord had started presenting the Bill. It is my good luck to be able to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hammond. I briefly knew him when he was a Foreign Office Minister, and he gave me a very nice breakfast the day we unveiled the statue of Mahatma Gandhi in Parliament Square. I do remember that. Of course, I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Shafik, who is director of the London School of Economics. As I am an emeritus professor, she is my boss, so I welcome her.
I was also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, said, a member of the EU Financial Affairs Sub-Committee, and I have been through some of this in an earlier phase. I remember saying to some City witnesses that the City should not think it is popular in the country. When push comes to shove, the Government will go for fishermen, not the City. I said fishermen, but there are others to which that would apply. And I think the Government did go for the fishermen, not the City, because the City is not popular in the country.
We may say proud things about the City, but what has struck me—I state this observation—is that in the Bill, we have missed the chance, as many other noble Lords have said, to tighten up regulatory structures in the City. I was alarmed when I saw how much power the FCA is going to have. The FCA is not a very efficient regulatory institution.
Many noble Lords have mentioned the LCF case, and I think what had happened at LCF was known, and it was a scandal because lots of ordinary people were deprived by that scheme. I am sorry to say this, but even when it was known that this had happened, the head of the FCA was promoted. I know he was printing money for the Government, but I still think it does not look good, especially if we are going to establish a global reputation. If we are going to be competitive in the world, we must have a much better reputation for our regulatory institutions than we have.
I have been in your Lordships’ House for a long time. We started with the Baring Brothers, the BCCI and all sorts of other scandals, and we do slip up. Now we are on our own and we have to compete globally, we will have to really tighten up and not be smug about it. I hope this Bill gets amended or something else happens to get a better regulatory structure, better rules for the FCA, better accountability to Parliament and proper punishment for people failing on the job.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am afraid the wonders of modern technology are such that I am confined to a landline today, but that has not prevented me hearing two distinguished maiden speeches from my noble friend Lord Hammond of Runnymede and the noble Baroness, Lady Shafik, and I congratulate both of them. I also add my congratulations to the Minister on his explanation that this Bill was the first step in creating a regulatory framework designed to reinforce the UK’s position as a leading world financial centre and enable the UK to take advantage of our post-Brexit freedom of action.
In addition, as the Association of British Insurers pointed out in its briefing on the Bill, it also provides a good foundation for positive future co-operation with our European neighbours. As such, it has my enthusiastic support, but as the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, pointed out in his speech, it is a Christmas tree Bill, and there are, inevitably, some decorations about which I am less enthusiastic, and there is at least one decoration that seems to be missing from the tree altogether.
Before I go any further, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the register of interests, in particular that I chair a company that is regulated by the FCA. My foremost point concerns the culture we are trying to create with this Bill. What do I mean by culture? When the regulators, the FCA and others come to see you in the firm, they are very interested in what the culture of the firm is and what the prevailing attitudes of the senior management are; for example, the balance being struck between innovation and conservatism, the level of acceptance of financial and operational risk, the treatment of staff and so on. Up to now, a large measure of this culture has been dictated by the institutions of the EU. This, of course, will no longer be the case. I ask my noble friend: who is going to be responsible for establishing this future culture? How do the Government plan to assess the culture? How, if at all, would they plan to achieve changes to that culture? Last, but by no means least, as many other noble Lords have remarked, what role will Parliament have in that process? At first glance, there seems to be a considerable democratic deficit, as many noble Lords have said.
A good part of the Bill is devoted to improvements in the tightening up of the regulatory regime. Having participated in the proceedings on the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, I understand and support such changes, particularly where they reflect changes in business practice and business behaviour. However, all these measures come with a cost. That cost is borne not by the Government or by financial institutions but by the consumers, clients and investors. There is a need, as we introduce new regulations to deal with new circumstances, to step back and see what old regulations can be amended, or be dispensed with completely as being no longer effective.
As we sail into this brave new world, an important issue will be the extent to which the Government are able to obtain reciprocity or equivalence from the EU. It will be a matter of great interest to Parliament, this House, and indeed the country as a whole. I chair the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. When the committee considered the various interim regulations for the financial services sector, it was far from clear what, if any, reciprocity had been achieved. I was asked by the committee to write to the Minister John Glen about this, and I am afraid that his response, dated 7 January, which I invite my noble friend to read, was hardly a model of clarity. The Government declined to accept new Clause 8 in the other place, which required the Government to report on equivalence. If this is still the Government’s considered position, they will need to do better than Mr Glen’s letter.
I turn finally to a decoration that I think is missing from the tree altogether. I served as a member of the post-legislative scrutiny committee on the Bribery Act. Our investigation revealed a number of concerns. The first was the difference in treatment of smaller companies as opposed to larger companies as a consequence of the application of the directing mind principle—this was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier. The second concern was the often inordinate time taken over investigations, and, finally, the strange position that the failure to prevent offences applied only to bribery and tax cases and not to corporate crime generally.
I am aware that, in the other place, the Government declined to accept a widening amendment, but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and I will wish to explore this anomaly and return to this question in Committee.
To conclude, this is an exciting time for this country and for our financial services sector. Getting the right foundations in place quickly will be of critical importance, which is why this Bill has my support in principle.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I join the House in universally welcoming our two outstanding maiden speakers. Given that the noble Lord, Lord Hammond of Runnymede, discovered a long-hidden rebellious streak in the other place, and that his title has links to the Magna Carta, I hope that we will be seeing even more rebellion on the Benches opposite with his arrival. I also welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Shafik, who is clearly a powerful new voice on our Cross Benches. I was very glad to hear her mention green finance. I hope we will be hearing a lot more from her on that, as we just powerfully heard about those issues from the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. I will, as you might expect, be backing many of the amendments to which the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, referred.
However, on the Bill, I must begin by thanking Macmillan Cancer Support for its extremely useful briefing. I shall take its conclusions and extend them far more broadly than it ventured to do. Macmillan calls for an amendment to the Bill requiring organisations to have a statutory duty of care for customers. The charity suggests that that is the best way to ensure that financial service providers take a pre-emptive approach to ensure that they act in the best interests of their customers.
As you might expect, Macmillan focuses on the financial difficulties of people with cancer but also notes that the Financial Conduct Authority concludes that one in two people will become financially vulnerable at some point in their lives. I suggest that, in a complex and fast-changing world, overloaded with pressures on time and attention, with so many people stressed by the struggle for mere survival and the fear of rampant insecurity, the sensible approach would be for everyone to be treated as vulnerable and to acknowledge that our whole society is acutely vulnerable. If we created a system that works for the most vulnerable, it would be one that will work securely, resiliently and safely for everyone.
We know that our current system is not working for many at an individual level. Just look at the practical and topical example of the disastrous performance of the insurance sector when it came to business interruption insurance for small businesses in relation to Covid-19. The financial sector is utterly failing at a structural level to meet the collective needs of our whole society, acutely vulnerable as the Covid-19 pandemic has shown us to be. A system that works best for everyone would involve a financial sector that it a utility: a provision of essential services for the real economy—the economy that feeds us, builds our shelter, clothes us and provides the other essentials of life.
Instead, following decades of financialisation of everything from the care sector to the so-called water industry, we have a financial sector as parasite, sucking funds out of the real economy—all too often to tax havens—and loading essential provisions and services with unsustainable debt. If noble Lords think that I am being radical here, I invite them to read the extensive coverage in the Financial Times of the impact of financial engineering on the water companies.
We are more than a dozen years on from the 2008 financial crash, when the cash machines nearly stopped working. In the age of Covid-19, we are surely more aware now of the need for resilience and stability in this age of shocks. Yet I note that an Oxford University Faculty of Law conference held in 2018 on financial regulation concluded:
“We are safer, but not as safe as we should and could be.”
And that was just the thinking in the financial sector’s own terms.
I listened carefully to the Minister’s typically detailed and careful introduction and heard quite a bit about limiting risk. However, I did not hear the words “climate” or “nature” once. But we know that we need a financial sector that does not continue to fund the trashing of the planet and societies, supply funds to fossil fuel operations that are destroying the planet, pour money into the destruction of the rainforest, stuff the oceans with plastic or spread poverty and inequality through funding sweatshops and outright slave labour.
On 25 January, the US Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank simultaneously said that they would make climate considerations a central part of finance, the importance of which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, highlighted. It appears that we are not world-leading but world-trailing, yet again.
We are, of course, world-leading in dirty money, as explained earlier in considerable forensic detail by the noble Lord, Sikka. The issue was also mentioned by a number of Members of the House in an earlier question session on our relationship with Russia. We are a major global centre of corruption. The City is an Augean stables and the Bill is clearly sparing in its distribution of shovels. I give the House notice that I intend to support a proposed amendment to create a new corporate criminal offence for companies or bodies regulated by the FCA of failing to prevent economic crime. I also look forward to working with the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, on the issues of liability that he raised.
In summary, we obviously need a Financial Services Act, but the Bill is nothing like what we need. We are seeing increasing numbers of communities around the world understand that the model of economy, society and finance needed is one that allows us to live within the doughnut, as the saying goes—in the essential space that respects planetary limits while meeting human needs, thereby ensuring that everyone is treated with respect and given dignity, as defined by the economist Kate Raworth in her book Doughnut Economics. We need a Financial Services Act that sets out how our financial sector can meet the need to do that—a very differently structured sector that takes care of all our needs, instead of risking our security and future. We are in an emergency state in 2021. Your Lordships’ House has a responsibility to act to transform our planet-trashing, poverty-creating financial sector, as the other place has very clearly failed to do.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con) [V]
My Lords, I refer your Lordships to my registered interests and extend a very warm welcome to my noble friend Lord Hammond of Runnymede. I have sat through many of his speeches, including the famous one in which he described why “Spreadsheet Phil” is inappropriate, but this was exemplary. His maiden speech and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Shafik, were excellent.
The final EU withdrawal agreement was a success, but, as has been discussed in this House and elsewhere, it was light on financial services. Mark Carney, the former Governor of the Bank of England, said this time last year that the City of London must not be a “rule-taker” after Brexit, effectively outsourcing the regulation and supervision of our global financial centre. Therefore, while adopting the EU rulebook in the first instance has delivered much-needed continuity and stability, we must now think about what comes next. That must surely be an approach that sees the UK continue to set global standards in prudential regulation and consumer protection, without losing sight of our broader objectives of innovation and competition.
There are three initiatives worthy of mention that can reinforce the initial steps taken in the Bill. The first is the future regulatory framework review. The Government’s response to this will give us the clearest indication yet of the vision for financial services post Brexit. I note the stress placed on equivalence of outcome. This should give us more room for interpretation, and indeed the opportunity to revisit many areas of law which were effectively gold-plated into UK law when we were EU members.
The second is the productive finance review. This concerns the means to unlock more capital to increase productive capacity in the real economy. I mention it here because it should also look at the impact of regulation on institutional capital flows into key areas such as infrastructure and technology. EU directives IORP and Solvency II limit such capital flows with prohibitive capital charges and should be looked at immediately. There is £6 trillion in UK private pensions alone that could be unlocked for more productive purposes.
The third is the Kalifa review into UK fintech. The Chancellor and my noble friend Lord Gadhia recently spoke of the need to see a second big bang in the City. Fintech is a key part of that. I hope the review proposes reforms as transformational as the first big bang was for the City.
Turning to the specifics of the Bill, there are commendable measures that will advance the competitiveness of financial services within our current regulatory envelope. Asset management remains our most globally significant subsector. Therefore, the measures to update the regime for third-country investment firms is to be commended. Similarly, introducing a more proportionate prudential approach to regulating investment firms will lower their costs of doing business, and better reflect underlying risk. On the other side of the coin, there are important measures on supervision and consumer protection. In particular, I commend the review that former FCA director Chris Woolard is leading on “buy now, pay later” lenders, where there is mounting evidence of bad debt, mis-selling and very bad practice. However, on FCA enforcement, there is a balance to be struck, and this Bill is, I am afraid, another opportunity missed to strike that balance. I am referring to the FSCS levy, FCA enforcement and the endless ex-post powers of the Financial Ombudsman Service.
The FSCS levy is due to soar by a third, to over £1 billion, with one of the reasons given being the cost of compensating SIPP consumers. However, there is mounting evidence that the FOS has been overreaching itself in its decisions against those very same SIPP providers. For example, many SIPP providers provide execution-only services on behalf of a client—the clue in the phrase “self-invested”—and yet claims of mis-selling are upheld, even where no financial advice is proffered and no advisory permissions are even held.
Frankly, this has the appearance of a racket. Blessed by the FCA, the FOS adjudicates, the FSCS is jacked up accordingly, the FS industry is forced to pay, driving some literally to bankruptcy, and the money flows seamlessly back to the FCA. It is a system with no accountability before the law, and no right of appeal. In short, it is unjust, and at a time when the broader powers of the FCA are being debated. Will the Minister consent to revisiting this important issue? It is a shame that the Bill does not seek to rebalance the relationship between the FCA and FOS and bring some common sense into how FOS operates.
Members of this House might recall that I have been banging on about FOS for some time, and I have had the pleasure of meeting the City Minister to discuss it. Well, something fell into my lap this summer. I received an unsolicited credit card from a company called NewDay. I had not asked for a credit card. A day or so later, a neighbour spotted someone rummaging in my outdoor letter box. It was a scam. Someone had ordered a card in my name and was seeking to retrieve the PIN subsequently sent in the post. A simple remedy would be to require credit card recipients to confirm that they had ordered one before it is sent to them. I suggested that to the company; it refused, so I complained to the FOS and it took six months for the FOS to tell me it could not fix the issue as the FCA handbook, which, as we know, governs FOS, states that as I was not yet a customer, I was not an eligible complainant under the FCA dispute resolution—rule 2.7.2, if you are interested—so it would take it no further and, as a result, others will now get scammed in this way.
That shows a dramatic shortage of common sense. Does the Minister agree that it is not clear that FOS is fit for purpose, and that the Bill provides us with an opportunity to ensure that FOS and the FCA do the job Parliament had envisaged, or to let us change the way FOS and the FCA operate?
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I take this opportunity to congratulate the two new Members of your Lordships’ House, the noble Lord, Lord Hammond of Runnymede, and the noble Baroness, Lady Shafik, on their excellent and thought-provoking maiden speeches.
Undoubtedly, the financial services sector is important to the City of London and to the UK. It is very much the engine that drives our economy. In the post-Brexit situation—I hasten to add that I did not favour or want Brexit—we need economic and financial stability and a strong means of financial regulation. That must be accompanied by consumer protection. I note that the Bill contains a new regulatory regime for investment firms, and thus provides the Financial Conduct Authority with additional powers to set rules for such firms, while also containing measures to make the FCA much more accountable.
One area I want to concentrate on—other noble Lords have referred to it this evening—is economic crime. We have all heard stories about individuals who have been fleeced by investment companies that were not properly registered, and therefore could not get the money they invested returned to them when problems occurred. Will the Minister and his colleagues bring forward amendments containing retrospective powers to help such individuals and ensure that such effective financial scams, otherwise known as economic crime, cannot happen in the future? I shall also refer to two other issues about protecting individuals, in relation to credit services and our environment.
I have been advised about some individuals in the UK who have invested money—pension funds—in Dolphin Trust, now known as the German Property Group. This organisation had its UK office in Hanover. It was an unregulated property investment scheme. Apparently, this company was supposed to use investors’ money to revamp derelict buildings in Germany into apartment blocks. Then, after several years, investors would receive their money back with a hefty interest rate. They were told to invest in this company and that it was safe to do so because their money was aligned to a certain property so they would not lose out. I have talked to one family who did this and they have lost everything. There are over 1,300 individuals, throughout the UK, owed in excess of £165 million. Problems emerged when they found out that the properties did not exist, and the company was not even registered.
Will the Minister indicate whether the new regulatory regime for investment firms will prevent such actions happening? I doubt that it will. Will the new legislation have retrospective powers to ensure that companies such as the German Property Group are held legally and financially accountable to their investors for the malfeasances that have occurred? What protections can be offered by the FCA under the new provisions in terms of capital levels, liquidity, risk management processes and governance arrangements?
Other areas addressed in the other place included the need to ensure that buy now, pay later credit services are brought into the scope of the Financial Conduct Authority to protect people from spending more than they can afford. Many people in this net take out further debt to repay the initial credit. What legislative consumer protection can be afforded to these individuals? Will the Minister bring forward amendments in your Lordships’ House to that effect?
I am of the firm belief that the Financial Conduct Authority should have regard to the UK’s target of reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, particularly in the year when the UK will chair COP 26. This would help to support the overarching goal of a green economy and financial sector. I note that the Minister in the other place stated that climate change is an issue to which the regulator should have regard. What, therefore, is the Government’s exact position and what is their timeframe for bringing forward legislative change in this regard? Will they do it now, through amendments? If not, I know that other noble Lords will do so, and I will support them.
Lord Blackwell (Con) [V]
My Lords, as well as adding my congratulations on the two excellent maiden speeches, it is customary to start by declaring my interests. Since I retired as chairman of Lloyds Banking Group at the beginning of the year, I am pleased to say that, for the first time in many years, I can address the House with no active interests other than as an ordinary shareholder. With that freedom, I welcome all the measures in the Bill, but I will comment on two that are particularly important.
First, it is essential to help provide more certainty on Libor contracts at this stage. In his opening remarks, my noble friend gave mortgages as an example. While I welcome the measures in the Bill, do the Government believe that the measures that enable the FCA to replace Libor in benchmark contracts are sufficient to apply to mortgages and commercial loans? Might my noble friend also consider some kind of safe harbour for banks if they suffer litigation from clients as a result of FCA instructions?
Secondly, I welcome the enabling legislation for the Statutory Debt Repayment Plan scheme, but note that, in developing the regulations later this year, it will be important to ensure that all the customer’s debts can be looked at holistically, and that the proposed plan is offered to customers only where it is the right and best solution for their particular needs.
More broadly, as the Minister made clear, many of the measures in the Bill are to establish UK-based regulations to replace those previously enacted through the European Union. I welcome the principle the Bill establishes that, unlike EU regulations, the UK should keep the primary legislation limited to the overall framework for regulation, with the Treasury providing necessary secondary legislation, with the regulators then given freedom to apply that in proportionate and flexible rules.
As the noble Lord, Lord Butler, pointed out in respect of MiFID, experience has shown that attempting to legislate in detail on the regulation of financial services can create unintended anomalies that the regulators are then powerless to address. It also inhibits their freedom to shape rules to reflect varied industry circumstances, or to adapt to market innovation, and those companies that seek to innovate. So, I also welcome the Government’s ongoing review and consultation on the future regulatory framework, which is looking at going much further in transferring responsibility for detailed rule-making back to the PRA and FCA.
While there will be debate on the initial measures covered in the Bill, the point I want to focus on, like other noble Lords, is what is missing from it on the effective governance of the regulators in exercising those increased powers. I recognise these are matters that have been subject to consultation, but they are nevertheless germane to many of the delegated powers in this current legislation. As I said, I believe it is right to give the PRA and FCA the responsibility and powers to make, adapt and apply regulations to promote the stability of our financial markets and protect the interests of consumers within the framework of laws passed by Parliament. Between them they have the expertise to do that and, as with the Bank of England, we should expect them to undertake their role with an objective independence—independent, that is, of short-term political pressures.
I welcome the fact that this Bill also introduces, for the first time, the obligation on the FCA and PRA to consider the international standing of the UK investment and credit institutions in making their rules. Like my noble friends Lord Hunt and Lord Bridges, I believe that, post Brexit, it should be part of their formal objectives to promote a healthy UK industry that can compete successfully on the global stage. To do that, there may also need to be a greater requirement for them to ensure that the two regulators have complementary rule-making and supervision without, at this stage, seeking to recreate the single FCA.
In delegating those powers to the FCA and PRA, Parliament needs to ensure that there is an effective way to scrutinise their work and hold them to account for their actions. I do not believe that the Treasury Select Committee, while it has an important and critical role, is the right or adequate forum to provide that detailed and apolitical oversight. By contrast, having served in the past on a Joint Committee on rewriting tax laws, I believe that Joint Committees of both Houses can bring greater experience and expertise to bear in a more considered and less political environment.
So, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, in proposing, as a complement to this Bill, that Parliament establishes a new purpose-built Joint Committee that I would call the financial services regulatory oversight committee. It would be supported by appropriate technical experts whose role would be to provide detailed scrutiny of new regulations—I stress not to give ex ante approval, but simply to review them after the event. The committee could also take evidence from those in the industry on the implementation of financial regulations and any concerns that raised. If necessary, the committee could then have the power to propose statutory instruments to Parliament where amendments were required.
The Bill may or may not be the right place to introduce provision for this kind of oversight. I recognise that the Government’s consultation has only just closed, but I would welcome any early thoughts my noble friend can give on how the Government see this oversight issue being addressed and what their timetable is for doing so. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I very much welcome this Bill. As the chair of the cross-industry Enforcement Law Review Group, I will concentrate very much on Clause 34, which I and many others welcome. I anticipate that there will be a number of amendments trying to get to the bottom of exactly how the Government see it operating, and I should be enormously grateful if the Minister could circulate to me the current draft of the regulations, so that we shall be talking to each other off the same hymn sheet, as it were, in Committee.
I very much encourage the Government to bring forward these regulations swiftly, and I encourage the Opposition to support the Government. There will be an obvious need for them as we come out of Covid, and I do not believe that, given the state of the debt advice industry, there is any quick perfectibility on offer. It would be far better to get something up and running, to review it pretty swiftly—perhaps after six months—and to produce a better version then and a better version a year or two after that. This is something that the industry will learn to work with, and we should aim at the start not for perfection but for something practical and effective.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
I welcome the Bill and congratulate my noble friend on bringing it forward. I add my warm congratulations to my noble friend Lord Hammond of Runnymede. Being elected on the same day, I am glad to see another from the class of 1997 joining our Benches. I also give a very warm welcome to the noble Baroness, Lady Shafik, and I look forward to hearing both their contributions going forward.
I support all the objectives of this Bill, and I entirely endorse the contributions that the financial sector makes to the UK economy, not just in London but also Leeds and Edinburgh in particular. I will focus on some aspects in the current Bill that I would like to see strengthened as well as aspects that are not in it, which I hope to pursue in Committee.
I warmly welcome Clause 35 and the “Successor accounts for Help-to-Save savers”. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, I have sympathy with the request and briefing from Macmillan, calling for support for cancer patients, who are a most vulnerable group in a particular time of need. When undergoing both diagnosis and subsequent treatment, they often enter a period where their financial circumstances are severely compromised. I believe that the FCA’s contention that the current principles are adequate needs to be qualified, and therefore I have some sympathy with the call for a statutory duty of care in this regard. I would very much welcome my noble friend’s response to that particular call.
I also hope that this Bill and its provisions will give the opportunity to review how the regulations, which came into force in 2012, on short selling are currently working. I believe that that is a particularly distasteful and immoral practice, and my noble friend may prefer to pursue this through international and global means. Therefore, I would be very interested to hear what discussions he and his colleagues at the Treasury have had within the context of the OECD and other international organisations. However, I believe that this would be a good opportunity to go back and revisit these regulations and see how they are operating. At worst, they can be very damaging to the economy and employment, leading to many people losing their businesses and livelihoods.
I turn to the question of green financing and the opportunity that this would give, in the context of the Bill, to benchmark all stocks against green credentials. For me, a particularly welcome recent move has been the ban on fracking in the United States.
I will quote the words of Mark Carney, who said when he launched his Green Horizon summit in November last year:
“Private finance will play a critical role in funding the initiatives and innovations of the private sector and helping companies realign their business models for net zero.”
I believe that the COP 26 climate change summit, which the UK is hosting in Glasgow in November, will be an ideal opportunity to ensure that the UK is at the forefront of green finance. I hope that, as the Bill before us today passes through its legislative stages, it will give us an opportunity to show that London, Edinburgh, Leeds and other financial centres in the UK are at the heart of green financing. I support the Bill and look forward to its passage through this House.
Lord Gadhia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friends Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Lady Shafik on their maiden speeches. Their choice of debate is especially appropriate, and the quality of their contributions demonstrates how much they will enrich your Lordships’ House. I look forward to their future active participation.
I turn to our main topic. I welcome this omnibus Financial Services Bill in the spirit in which it is intended: as an entrée to the main course that will follow once the Government have consulted on the future regulatory framework. We should therefore calibrate our expectations of the Bill accordingly and not attempt to boil the ocean. Instead we should keep our powder dry to tackle the more fundamental issue of the accountability framework between the Government, regulators and Parliament, with a potential role for an independent body, which I will come on to.
First, some personal context. I started my own career in financial services 30 years ago this year at a City merchant bank in the aftermath of the big bang. I have therefore seen my fair share of trials and tribulations over three decades. During this period the City—and financial services more broadly—has constantly reinvented itself, sometimes by choice and more often through necessity. So, if I bring a bias to this debate, it is as someone who has seen the financial services sector overcome its challenges to not just survive but thrive.
Apart perhaps from our life sciences sector, there are not many globally significant industries where the UK plays such a world-leading role. An effective regulatory framework is clearly one of the key ingredients to sustain this position. The financial crisis and now Brexit have forced us to re-evaluate the regulatory architecture in quick succession. The onshoring of powers from the EU has triggered an inevitable debate between those who would like to see the UK take full advantage of its new-found freedoms to simplify and reduce the burden of regulation and those who fear that we might embark on a race to the bottom, to the detriment of consumers and society. That debate is illusory. However much some of us might dream of radically streamlining regulation, we are simply not destined for a bonfire of rules. To quote Treasury Minister John Glen, speaking in the other place during its Second Reading debate,
“we have no intention of needlessly, ideologically or recklessly diverging from EU legislation. Instead, we will maintain existing regulations where they make sense for the financial services industry in this country.”—[Official Report, Commons, 9/11/20; col. 669.]
It is not surprising to hear that strong statement, since the UK has played an active role in shaping much of the EU legislation. It is therefore increasingly unbelievable for the EU to maintain that it is seeking assurances about our future intentions before making an equivalence decision. We should recognise that the equivalence process is being used as a political lever, not a technical determination. I therefore agree with Andrew Bailey’s sentiments, expressed in recent evidence to the Treasury Select Committee, that we should not hold our breath for a quick decision and should treat trade equivalence as a bonus if and when it comes.
We should also recognise that the EU is unusual in drawing up such detailed rules and incorporating them into legislation. This is not the norm around the world. Other jurisdictions rely more heavily on the expertise of independent regulators to translate legislative objectives into detailed rulebooks. Delegating responsibility for technical areas of financial regulation is necessary, but also brings important accountability and scrutiny issues.
This subject requires more than a six-minute speaking slot, so I shall make three brief points. First, we need to be strategic in the scope of powers we delegate and the risk of concentration—what Sir Paul Tucker, in his excellent and thoughtful book Unelected Power, calls an “over mighty citizen”. Another of his observations is the importance of having a clear objective that can be monitored. He warns against having three or four objectives in statute that are ranked equally and are vague, which is relevant to the new “have regard” clauses incorporated in the Bill. While I would hope we can manage primary and secondary objectives, we should consider this input from a respected former front-line practitioner.
Secondly, while we decide upon the new architecture, the show must go on and Parliament needs to have a role in the process. I suggest a relatively simple fix: the next set of remit letters from the Chancellor to the PRA and FCA should be published in draft form and offered for consultation and debate in both Houses, either in the Chamber or through Select Committees. It could also make sense to look at a Joint Committee of both Houses, drawing on the considerable expertise available across Parliament.
Thirdly, we need a more permanent body to help the Executive and Parliament scrutinise and streamline regulation more systematically. I suggest we look at creating an independent office for financial regulation, which draws on the examples of both the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Office of Tax Simplification and whose remit is a hybrid of the two. It would report annually on whether the statutory objectives of the financial regulators have been met and systematically review regulation to propose how it could be simplified. A continuous series of incremental improvements appear more feasible than a one-time reform package. The cumulative impact could be significant over time, and more enduring.
In conclusion, we must now deal with the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. If we can be as fleet of foot in financial regulation as we have been in vaccine procurement, then I am confident that the financial services sector can remain a strategic national asset, supporting jobs and prosperity. This Bill provides a start on that journey.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, this is one of the key Bills of this Parliament. Thankfully it is in the hands of a team who we all respect, as does the country at large. I too welcome our two new colleagues, my noble friend Lord Hammond and the noble Baroness, Lady Shafik, and look forward to hearing them again.
Just by way of background, I have chaired two quoted companies and have chaired the Tunbridge Wells Equitable Friendly Society. I am a firm believer in mutuality and successfully piloted through the Private Member’s Bill that became the Mutuals’ Deferred Shares Act 2015. I also spent 12 years on the Public Accounts Committee in the other place.
Other speakers have covered a huge spectrum this afternoon and this evening, so I just want to mention, in the macro, three issues as regards the City. First, coming from the Public Accounts Committee, I think that scrutiny of regulation is absolutely vital. I have listened to a number of noble colleagues—my noble friend Lord Blackwell, in particular— and I agree on the need for a Joint Committee. I will not say any more than that; it seems to me absolutely fundamental.
Secondly, economic crime is an increasing market—if I may use that phrase. Thankfully, we have the City of London Corporation which has its own police authority; it is the national lead for economic crime and supports calls by industry bodies for increased funding to fight economic crime. Over a third of all crime is economic or cyber, but only 2% of total police resources are allocated to policing this type of crime. Frankly, we need to look at this very closely and find some increased resources.
Finally, on the macro side, I was talking to the remembrancer in the City, and the City of London Corporation is an enthusiastic supporter of the greening of the economy. The City of London Corporation supports work by the Green Finance Institute including, for example, the plan to launch the UK’s first sovereign green bond; work to identify and remove investment barriers to wide-scale decarbonisation of the UK’s heating; and work on the development of a market for financing net-zero carbon properties. As I said, colleagues have mentioned a great many other things about the City.
I also want to look at one macro challenge that I have known about for years: payday loans. Every family in the UK needs access to credit. Historically, the average working-class family has used what is called home-collected credit. This is not new; it has been used across the UK for well over a century. I first came across it in the 1960s, when I was a councillor and alderman in the London Borough of Islington, and more recently in Northampton. A customer takes out a small short-term cash loan and the repayments are collected by the company agents who visit the customer at home each week. One single charge for the credit covers everything: the interest, the home-collection service, the cost of bad debts, company overheads and so on. There are no additional or penalty charges. If a customer cannot pay, the term of the loan is simply extended and the customer does not pay a penny more. It is 100% flexible and forgiving. However, home-collected credit is now under threat and, if that threat materialises, society will lose something very important.
If that happens, it will simply be because we have regulatory indifference. The authorities—the FCA and the FOS—are currently flouting their statutory remit to decide each case on its own merits. Historically, the regulator had a sound understanding of the product and how it worked in harmony with the budgeting cycles of these customers. Customers who use this methodology borrow only three or four times a year to cover the usual family expenses—at Christmas, Easter, back-to-school times or whatever. Now, the FCA sees this annual pattern as problematic—as re-lending, rather than sensible budgeting. In doing so, it fails to differentiate between payday lending, which is extremely harmful, and home-collected credit, which is not. The FCA and Financial Ombudsman Service are targeting the exact same re-lending patterns on affordability grounds, and their judgments act as a magnet to dubious claims management companies, which are just piling in.
When we reach Committee, we need to look very long and hard at this area. We, as legislators, need to hold the FCA and the FOS to account, because millions of working-class consumers up and down the country will be badly affected if this system of home-collected credit, which has been running for decades—for over a century, as I said earlier—comes to an end. It works well and it must be protected. Somehow or other, we have to sort out the terrible payday lending organisations.
We have had a long day and I know that we are looking forward to hearing the Minister wind up.
Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I join in the very warm welcome extended to the noble Lord, Lord Hammond of Runnymede, and the noble Baroness, Lady Shafik, who introduced themselves so powerfully in their maiden speeches.
This Bill may look technical, but it deals with a number of crucial issues, including the stability of our financial institutions. The Bill incorporates Basel III by using skeleton clauses that lay out policy at a very high and general level. It then eliminates secondary legislation and hands to the PRA the power to develop policy through its use of rules. It gives the regulators almost unlimited rein to craft rules that could be at the weak end of international standards, or the strong end, without parliamentary interference. The PRA faces no meaningful accountability, only delayed and minimal transparency, and an occasional review by a Select Committee.
The Financial Conduct Authority expects to follow the same template for the activities it regulates, as it makes clear in the financial regulatory framework review now in consultation. I join others in being shocked that this Bill does not wait for that consultation to be completed, but I think it indicates that the Government have already made up their mind. The PRA will later this year expand the scope of this template to cover its remaining activities. This is not delegated powers; it is the permanent removal of Parliament’s powers in the area of financial regulation. It is not just temporary; it is permanent. Let me quote from the framework review, which states that
“this approach will result in greater policy responsibility and discretion for UK regulators than has existed at any time since the early operation of FSMA following its introduction 20 years ago.”
FSMA 2000 is the regime that underpinned the culture—the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, reminded us of the importance of culture—and the naive regulation that led to the 2008 collapse, failed us over Libor and failed us for years over PPI. I could go on with other examples, but quite a few noble Lords have already done so very usefully. I hope that the Minister will look back and examine their speeches.
I am shocked on three grounds. The first is the general contempt for Parliament. We so often today see the pattern of skeleton Bills with policy then enacted through statutory instruments. However, this is even more cynical: a skeleton Bill with policy then set by the regulator in its rulebook. There is not even a semblance of accountability. This is not designed for flexibility, because we have plenty of fast-track procedures; it is deliberately designed to ensure that no effective oversight or challenge can be made by Parliament.
Secondly, we are at a critical time following Brexit, as my noble friend Lord Bruce of Bennachie and others reminded us. There is no way that the EU is going to grant anything but limited and temporary equivalence to financial services if they are only governed by rules in a regulator’s rulebook and can be changed without any parliamentary process. Indeed, I suspect the United States—I am thinking particularly of Janet Yellen—will be nervous of any equivalence rulings in the absence of any significant legislative underpinning. My noble friend Lady Bowles and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, raised real issues that remain unanswered and I hope that the Minister will address them.
Lastly, I am shocked because although I respect the integrity and intelligence of our regulators and recognise that they have more substantive powers than in 2008, I am still certain that this is not enough to discipline a sector where arrogance and greed have such a history of motivating bad behaviour. I sat on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards for nearly two years. Senior managers who are respected figures, many with gongs and widely recognised, had rushed for short-term, false profits to boost their huge bonuses, and boards of directors were intimidated into silence over reckless behaviour. The regulators failed to speak out, obsessed with regulatory perimeters and constrained by a deep deference to the big institutions. That deference remains, and today the noble Lords, Lord Sikka, Lord Northbrook and Lord Desai, have given us some very powerful examples, which again I hope the Minister will examine.
The regulators also lack the resources to take on the industry, and I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, who took us through some examples of that. The reports from the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards and the legislation that followed changed the landscape, but many of us on the commission feared that the powerful financial institutions would bide patiently and, as memories of the 2008 crash faded, would carefully—we guessed in our conversations that it would take 10 years—persuade the Government to unwind the constraints that prevented the high-risk gambling and the crafting of loopholes to increase both power and bonuses. This Bill tells us that we guessed that timing pretty right, and I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, who advised after-the-event oversight but not before-the-event oversight, that that approach pretty nearly destroyed the economy of this country.
It is an irony that the Bill deals with the final end of Libor and the other IBORs, abused in one of the biggest stains on the reputation of the UK’s financial services sector and its regulators. If we want an example of deference in the Treasury and in the regulators, we should listen to these words in the Explanatory Notes to this Bill. The reason that the notes give for ending Libor and similar benchmarks is:
“in response to cases of attempted manipulation of IBORs”.
Attempted? Fake submissions were made by the major banks in London every day for at least a decade, and probably two, in order to get a Libor benchmark that would boost the bonuses of traders and senior managers. Every day for those one or two decades, more than $400 trillion in outstanding loans across the globe were corruptly priced. The knowledge among regulators was evident, partly because the banks in their arrogance made no attempt to hide it, but also because the Bank of England got in on the act, asking banks to manipulate their Libor submissions for the more public-spirited purpose of hiding the depth of the 2008 crash. The scale of the corruption was so large and pervasive that it cannot be unravelled.
I have two other quick comments on the contents of the Bill. Many in the financial services industry have pressed for an international competitiveness requirement for the regulators, and there is in the Bill a “have regard” for both the PRA and the FCA, at least for certain sectors. We heard about that again today from the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Bridges of Headley, and others. The industry says constantly that it does not seek a reduction or dilution in regulatory standards, but I—and, I suspect, many others—am going to take some convincing that this competitiveness provision is not doing just that, and driving standards down.
Secondly, the clauses on statutory debt repayment plans and the debt respite scheme are good, but they fail to include a clear implementation timetable. I support those actions, but please may we have the timetable? With Covid, it is now exceedingly urgent.
The Bill is also noteworthy for everything that it does not include. This House will need to remedy that. I have quite a long list, but today the hour is late, and I shall mention only two. The first is a duty of care by financial institutions to all customers. My noble friend Lord Sharkey, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and others, highlighted that need.
The second—although it is not second in terms of priority—is action to motivate and incentivise the financial services sector to support our goals on climate change. My noble friends Lord Oates and Lady Sheehan and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, all spoke about that, and so did many others. It is crucial that those additions be made to the Bill. There are also other priorities, such as financial inclusion, but I will not go through that list now.
If there has been one message in this debate, which the Minister must now address, I can cite what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. She and I do not often see eye to eye on an issue, but she talked about the accountability deficit. If regulators are to be given such untrammelled powers as the Bill anticipates, will the Minister tell us now how they are to be held accountable to Parliament? He has heard the words of so many in this House, from all Benches and all political persuasions, who have made it clear that accountability is required.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I begin by thanking the Minister and his officials for their early engagement on this legislation, which is both wide-ranging and highly technical. I very much hope that this spirit of co-operation will continue throughout the Bill.
In recent times, our consideration of financial services matters has been restricted mainly to a raft of EU exit statutory instruments. As joyous as those debates were, this Bill provides a welcome shift in focus. It is a rare opportunity to review and revise the sector’s regulatory architecture, to ensure it is fit for purpose in the post-Brexit world.
As others have noted, financial services make a significant contribution to the UK economy in several respects: economic output, contribution to the Exchequer and the provision of skilled jobs. Despite recent capital movements to places such as Frankfurt, London remains one of the main global hubs of financial activity. The Chancellor has spoken of his wish to make London the world’s pre-eminent financial centre and, through our consideration of this Bill, we will be passing judgment on whether—and how—that ambition can be achieved.
While we often speak of London or the City, it is important to remember that financial services firms employ hundreds of thousands of staff across the country. Banking, insurance and other financial services have a significant impact—mostly positive, but sometimes negative—on the lives of consumers in every corner of the UK. A further task of ours is to make sure that this legislation works for them, as well as the firms themselves.
We may be more than a decade on from the global financial crisis, but this debate has highlighted that the events of that time remain at the forefront of our minds. Given the severe economic and social costs that came out of past regulatory failure, that is only right. It speaks to the points that I have just raised, that is, the importance of ensuring an appropriate balance between flexibility and responsibility.
Central to achieving this balance is the topic of oversight and scrutiny. As far as I can see, and as other noble Lords have observed, this Bill is severely lacking. Several fundamental regulatory changes are proposed in the Bill, yet, in many cases, there is no scope for formal parliamentary scrutiny. The Treasury has not always availed itself of the opportunity to attach scrutiny procedures to existing processes that could benefit from them.
I am sure that the Minister will assure us that the parliamentarians will be able to feed into and keep abreast of consultations and other policy exercises. To avoid any doubt, we clearly would not wish to unduly impinge on the independence of the Financial Conduct Authority, the Prudential Regulation Authority and other key actors. However, half of the delegated powers in this Bill go directly to regulators, and not even one of those has a formal parliamentary process attached to it.
I would not go so far as saying these proposals amount to deregulation, but I do believe that there is an absence of proper oversight and scrutiny mechanisms could lead us down a dangerous road in the future. As my noble friend Lord Eatwell, who will join us during later stages of the Bill, notes, the language used in the Bill’s supporting documents is, in places, worryingly reminiscent of the early 2000s.
It seems to me that, at the very least, regulators should be required to engage meaningfully with Parliament as a matter of course. It means more than periodically publishing reports or giving evidence to committees after important policy changes have been enacted. In the other place, arguments were put forward that Parliament should have a role in approving new rules before they take effect. I am sure we will explore this further.
Given the level of interest in this topic, I hope we can work collaboratively across your Lordships’ House to ensure improvements are made. In an ideal world, the Minister would work with us. However, if the Government remain unconvinced of our arguments, we reserve the right to ask MPs to think again. After all, we were told time and again that leaving the EU would see power returned to Parliament. Let us ensure the promise is upheld.
I am sure there are many of us who were hoping never to utter the word “Brexit” ever again. However, this Bill is inherently linked with the outcomes of the Brexit process. Therefore, as we progress to Committee, we will need to examine forensically the gap between the Government’s many commitments on financial services and the suboptimal reality the sector faces. Even if the Government seal a memorandum of understanding in March, access to EU markets will be well below what they have been. Why has the Prime Minister fallen so far short of his promises?
I am conscious that noble Lords are eager to hear from the Minister, so I will be brief in outlining other areas of concern. We expect important debates on the shift from LIBOR to SONIA and all that entails. Several noble Lords mentioned additional steps that could help to tackle money laundering and other forms of financial crime. It is important that we get this right. As I have mentioned, we need to ensure that consumers are properly protected from unscrupulous practices. On this last point, we will seek to table amendments that require proper regulation of the “buy now pay later” firms which appear to have grown exponentially during the Covid-19 pandemic. A review is under way in this area, but Labour believes that more urgency is required, especially if we are to avoid a repeat of the social problems that resulted from the past behaviour of certain payday lenders.
We look forward to working with colleagues on all Benches to hold the Chancellor to his word on greening finance. The Government have made a range of broader commitments, domestic and global, on climate change and it is vital that our legislation reflects the urgency of the situation.
This has been a very good debate, graced by two excellent maiden speeches. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hammond of Runnymede, and the noble Baroness, Lady Shafik, on their excellent contributions. It has been both a good debate and a surprising one. There has been a remarkable level of consensus running through the discussions, and I believe that that consensus means that the Bill is going to be much amended before it is sent back to the other place. I particularly think that the whole issue of accountability and scrutiny of the regulation-making powers is crucial and has to be further considered. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, got it right—it is not often I agree with her—and the words “accountability deficit” are crucial.
I recommend that the Minister ponders carefully what he hears in the subsequent days of debate in Committee. The best way forward will almost certainly be through negotiated agreement to reintroduce a satisfactory level of accountability and scrutiny.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their help in the thorough scrutiny of this Bill, both in this Chamber today and outside it. First, I offer my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Hammond of Runnymede, both on his speech and on the timing of his arrival at the beginning of this important piece of legislation. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Shafik, whom I have had the pleasure of meeting on one occasion. I know she will bring great wisdom to this House.
As I have said, this Bill represents the first step in a wider programme of reform and work to deliver the ambitious vision for financial services that the Chancellor set out in November. My noble friends Lord Hammond, Lord Hunt and Lord Bridges, among others raised the issue of how to appropriately balance the UK’s competitiveness as a global financial centre with the need to ensure the safety and soundness of the market. It cannot be a race to the bottom, and I take the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that we cannot be a first-class global financial centre if we try to race to the bottom, bearing in mind her comments about Janet Yellen. We need to show to the rest of the world that this will be a soundly regulated environment.
As the Chancellor stressed in his November speech, the Government are committed to maintaining and enhancing the UK’s position as a global hub for finance. We will continue to consider appropriate ways to further this ambition in the way we approach this legislation. This is demonstrated by the inclusion of a duty on the regulators, when making the prudential rules covered by the Bill, to have regard to the likely effect on the UK’s competitiveness.
The noble Lords, Lord Oates and Lord Naseby, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman, Lady Sheehan, Lady McIntosh, Lady Ritchie and Lady Bennett, underlined the important role that the financial services sector must play in our efforts to tackle climate change and its impact. To reassure noble Lords, green finance will remain integral to financial services legislation in the UK. The Chancellor made a number of green commitments in his November speech. The noble Lord, Lord Reid, noted that net zero was not explicitly addressed in the Bill, but this Government can show a substantial track record in tackling carbon in our economy. I believe that we are one of the fastest reducers of carbon emissions of any G7 country. The regulators already consider climate change as a risk to the economy, including through climate change stress tests, which assess the impact of climate-related risks on the UK’s financial system.
My noble friends Lord Holmes and Lord Leigh of Hurley spoke on the importance of fintech. The UK is building on its existing strengths as a leading global destination to start, grow and invest in fintech. We will shortly have Ron Kalifa’s report on this important issue and I am sure that this House will debate it further once the report is available.
Constraints on time mean that I may not be able to address all the issues raised in detail, but I will write to any noble Lord to whom I am not able to respond today. I start with the first objective: to enhance the UK’s world-leading prudential standards and protect financial stability. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the strong views across the whole House on the issue of regulatory oversight and the delegation of powers to regulators. It will be the Government’s job over the next few weeks to try to reassure this House that we have got the right balance. We have heard much on this from the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer, Lady Noakes, Lady Altmann and Lady Bowles, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey, Lord Blackwell, Lord Tunnicliffe, Lord Desai and Lord Sharpe, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans—quite a wide spectrum.
I do not, however, accept the suggestion that anything in the Bill undermines Parliament’s role in relation to financial services regulation. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 creates the existing UK model for financial services legislation. It sets the objectives for the PRA and FCA and confers broad rule-making powers to give them the tools that they need to meet those objectives. It also specifies the mechanisms for Parliament to scrutinise the regulators’ success in meeting the objectives that are set for them. Through the FSMA, Parliament therefore establishes the appropriate architecture to guarantee that our financial services sector is well regulated. Parliament entrusts the detailed rule-making needed to deliver this to the UK’s independent and expert regulators. Our role is to give them the right objectives to ensure that they prioritise the safety and soundness of our financial system.
While the original FSMA model is 20 years old, following the financial crisis there was a thorough review of our approach to financial services legislation. We made significant changes to the regulatory architecture, splitting responsibility for prudential and conduct regulation and establishing a Financial Policy Committee with a remit to identify, monitor and take action to address systemic risks to the UK’s financial system. We also made regulatory changes, such as ring-fencing retail parts of banks from their investment and international banking activities. However, there was no change to the principle that independent and expert regulators are best placed to make detailed rules, albeit with the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. The International Monetary Fund, the OECD and wider academic literature consider the FSMA model to be world leading. The Government likewise continue to believe that it forms the appropriate basis for our financial services regulation. However, they also recognise that it is important to balance the regulator’s role as a rule-maker with a greater level of democratic oversight and accountability.
The approach that the Bill seeks to take in relation to prudential measures builds on our respected FSMA model of regulation. We are consulting on the broader approach to regulation. This will close shortly on 19 February. However, it is necessary to act now on these elements of prudential regulation to ensure that we keep pace with international developments. In relation to these specific measures, having considered the issue, the other place reached the view that the Bill gets the balance right.
The approach taken here will ensure that our regime has the agility and flexibility needed to respond quickly and effectively to emerging challenges. There is a balance to be struck between the level of detail put down in legislation and regulators’ ability to respond to a changing environment. We are seeking to help UK firms seize new opportunities safely and responsibly. The accountability framework we have written into the Bill provides appropriate strategic policy input and democratic oversight from the Government and Parliament in these specific areas. Through this accountability framework and related provisions, Parliament will set the policy framework within which the regulators operate. For example, it will require the PRA to have regard to the effect of the Basel rules on the provision of finance to the real economy. The Bill places obligations on the regulators to report on how the matters specified in the Bill have influenced the rules that they make. Various mechanisms are available to Parliament for further scrutiny—for example, calling the regulators to appear before the relevant committees. As my honourable friend the Economic Secretary said in the other place, the make-up of these committees is primarily a matter for Parliament, and not the Government, to determine.
I hope these points have addressed some of the issues and concerns raised by my noble friends Lord Naseby and Lord Blackwell. I look forward to discussing this further in Committee, with my other government colleagues, to see what assurance we can provide for noble Lords that we have the right approach.
My noble friends Lord Northbrook and Lord Blackwell asked about the FCA’s use of Libor powers. The FCA published a consultation on 18 November, on the use of its power to provide for the continuity of Libor after panel banks withdraw their contributions. The Bill will mean that the FCA is required to publish, and have regard to, statements of policy when exercising its power to change the methodology of a benchmark. Industry respondents have noted that our legislation marks an important step in the wind down of Libor, but we also recognise their suggestions that it may be beneficial to provide additional legal protections to limit the potential for litigation associated with the application of a synthetic Libor. In Committee in the other place, my honourable friend the Economic Secretary stated that the Treasury was committed to looking into the issue further and providing industry with the reassurance that it needs.
The Bill’s second objective is to promote openness between the UK and international markets. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, spoke about the markets in financial instruments directive and the investment firm prudential regime measures. I can confirm that the FCA has already published its first consultation on the details of this regime. I will write to the noble Lord further on his wider questions, which extend beyond the Bill specifically. Likewise, I will respond to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, about our relationship with the USA, in writing. I reiterate the point I made at the beginning: we have a common interest in having a regulatory framework that is attractive to large markets such as the United States. Similarly, I will write to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans on his questions surrounding the access to Gibraltar.
The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, the noble Lords, Lord Reid, Lord Gadhia, Lord Northbrook, Lord Holmes and Lord Hodgson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, spoke of equivalence, in our new relationship with the EU. In November, the Chancellor announced as many equivalence decisions as we could for the EU and EEA member states, in favour of openness and it made sense to do so. Equivalence is an autonomous, unilateral mechanism, and our preference has always been for a full set of mutual decisions for both the UK and the EU. We remain open for further discussions with the EU on the decisions. The UK and the EU have agreed to structured regulatory co-operation for financial service based on a shared commitment to preserve financial stability, market integrity and the protection of investors and consumers. A memorandum of understanding will be agreed in discussion between the EU and the UK in March, to establish a framework for this co-operation. However, I accept the realpolitik of the situation and that, as many noble Lords have said today, we must not put all our hopes in that particular expectation. We need to use our new-found independence to create a regime that can have a successful relationship with the EU, but if it is not prepared to reciprocate, we need to move on to deal with that.
I will say a little bit more to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on delegated powers. Several other jurisdictions largely use regulator rules to regulate financial services; indeed, the EU is the outlier in this regard. This means that the EU is used to assessing regulator rules and practice as part of its equivalence assessments. There is no reason why it would not be able to assess the UK in the same way, if the will is there. There is no suggestion that the US would not accept this as a proper and responsible regulation.
I say to my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley that the Government are continuing to work together with the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, the PRA and the FCA on the issues he outlined. I will ask officials to write to him specifically on the example he gave about the scam to which he was subjected, and this strange anomaly about the regulator not being able to deal with it because he was not actually a customer. That deserves a detailed response.
The Bill’s third and final objective is to support the maintenance of an effective financial services regulatory framework and sound capital markets. I greatly appreciate the efforts of colleagues on the opposite Benches, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, in engaging with the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and my noble friend Lady Altmann spoke about bills of sale and logbook loans. I am grateful to them for raising the issue. I will write to my noble friend Lord Naseby on the issues he raised regarding home-collected credit and the perhaps mistaken conflation with payday lending.
I restate my commitment, and that of all my government colleagues, to work constructively with the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. I have found him to be a very constructive interlocutor and I want to try to maintain that dialogue over the next few weeks.
From economic crime to buy now, pay later, which the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, raised, it is important to stress that the Government are firmly committed to protecting consumers. Chris Woolard, the former interim CEO of the FCA, is undertaking a review of the unsecured credit market, including buy now, pay later. This report is due shortly. If it concludes that regulation is necessary, we are ready to take quick and proportionate action to implement it.
I can assure my noble friends Lord Jopling and Lord Naseby, my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, the noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Rooker, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, that the Government are committed to making the UK a hostile place for illicit finance. The UK is internationally recognised as having some of the strongest controls worldwide for tackling money laundering and terrorist financing. In 2019 the Government published the landmark economic crime plan, which brought together the Government, law enforcement and the private sector in closer co-operation than ever before, to deliver a whole-system response to economic crime.
I listened intently to the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, regarding the statutory debt repayment scheme measure. I confirm that implementing this scheme remains a key priority of this Government. We will consult of draft regulations as soon as possible after the Financial Services Bill receives Royal Assent.
Now that we have left the EU, this comprehensive package of measures represents the UK assuming responsibility for making its own laws in this area. The Financial Services Bill is a first step towards achieving that goal. I beg to move.
Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text