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
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues and Welsh Government Ministers about freeports. North Wales and the Liverpool city region are interdependent, and Liverpool freeport can bring significant economic benefits for the whole region.
Mr Jones [V]
As my right hon. Friend has said, Liverpool freeport is potentially of huge benefit not only to the city itself, but to north Wales, which is part of the same economic region. Does he agree that there is considerable potential synergy to be found, for example, between the Deeside enterprise zone and the new freeport, and will he urge the Welsh Government to grasp the opportunity and work with Westminster to maximise that synergy?
Simon Hart
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend’s assessment of the situation. Local authorities and port authorities are keen on this initiative, and these schemes can produce up to 15,000 jobs each. It is therefore disappointing that the Welsh Government seem to be still dragging their feet and allowing the initiative to flourish everywhere other than Wales, which is costing jobs and livelihoods.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
A freeport at Liverpool will sap and displace trade, investment and jobs from Holyhead in north Wales. Liverpool will get £26 million of investment, whereas we are only being offered £8 million for one UK freeport in either north or south Wales. How will the Secretary of State ensure that Wales gets its fair share of £26 million for its one UK freeport, and how will he prevent jobs being lost and moving from north Wales to Liverpool?
Simon Hart
The best way of avoiding that outcome is for the Welsh Government to get behind the scheme and support a project that is endorsed by local authorities and port authorities in Wales, and to encourage jobs and livelihoods in that way. Every single day that they leave it—on the basis of the “not invented here” syndrome—will cost jobs and livelihoods. My message to the hon. Gentleman is get hold of the Welsh Government and encourage them to come to the party.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
As the vaccine roll-out has shown, our four nations are safer, stronger and more prosperous together, and I look forward to the people of Wales giving a resounding endorsement of the Union at the Senedd elections in May.
Anne McLaughlin [V]
I find that very interesting, because the Labour First Minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford, told the Welsh Affairs Committee a few weeks ago that devolution is under aggressive attack by a Tory Government who have “outright hostility” at the heart of their governance. With independence currently polling as high as 40% in Wales without an official campaign, will the Secretary of State respect the democratic rights of people in Wales and Scotland to have a post-pandemic independence referendum in the event of pro-independence majorities in May?
Simon Hart
I think the First Minister has been pretty reckless in trying to inject an air of uncertainty into these discussions, and most of us realise that he is only doing so because his only chance of remaining as First Minister post May is to do some kind of a deal with Plaid Cymru; and we know what the price of that would be.
Andrew Bowie
Will my right hon. Friend explain what benefits to Wales being a member of our United Kingdom brings?
Simon Hart
We could spend the rest of the morning listing the benefits, but I refer my hon. Friend to the Budget only a few days ago, with £4.8 million for the Holyhead hydrogen hub, £30 million for the global centre of rail excellence, the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund and £450 million community ownership fund. I could go on and on, but the benefits are numerous.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llefarydd—agus beannachtaí na Féile Pádraig oraibh! Pob bendith arnoch chi heddiw, ar ddydd gŵyl Padrig.
Asylum seekers will—
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I just say to the right hon. Lady, let us just stop; I do not mind the beginning, but to start extending the sentence in Welsh goes against the rules of the House.
Liz Saville Roberts
The first part was in Irish, the second was in Welsh and it was wishing everybody a happy St Patrick’s—
Mr Speaker
Order. I have no arguments with it whatsoever, but unfortunately the House makes the rules; I am only here to ensure that the rules are kept.
Liz Saville Roberts
Thank you; diolch yn fawr.
Asylum seekers will leave the squalid Penally camp this weekend, thanks to months of campaigning by Plaid Cymru police and crime commissioner Dafydd Llywelyn, and others. The camp is in the Secretary of State’s constituency, but he only became aware of the Home Office plans on 12 September last year, days before people moved in. Despite months of resistance from his own Government, I am afraid to say that he now scrabbles to change the narrative, and he recently dismissed the Welsh Government’s “little status”—those are his own words. Given the “little status” of the Wales Office, how does he continue to justify its existence?
Simon Hart
As brass neck goes, that is quite an exceptional example of it, as far as Penally is concerned. It seems that Plaid’s commitment to a nation of sanctuary extends only as far as its not being in its patch, as we have discovered from the reactions of the right hon. Lady’s party colleagues. The fact of the matter is that this has been a difficult situation for a number of people involved. It is being resolved, thanks to collaborative efforts between the Home Office and the Wales Office, demonstrating the value of both.
Liz Saville Roberts
On Wales as a nation of sanctuary, Penally is closing while Napier remains open.
Today, work begins on reducing Wales’s voice in Westminster from 40 MPs to 32. At the same time, the levelling-up fund will make local authorities’ ability to bid for funding dependent on—wait for it—the number of MPs in their areas. The Secretary of State has been gifted a role in overseeing all this, while our Senedd —the Parliament with competence over economic development—is sidelined. How does he condone taking such power away from the people of Wales in the name of pork barrel politics?
Simon Hart
The right hon. Lady needs to read up on the notes on the subject. What she has described is nothing resembling the truth. The levelling-up fund is a fantastic opportunity for Wales, as is the community renewal fund. It involves local authorities and local stakeholders in a way that she should welcome. It is the true definition of devolution. It does not get wedged in Cardiff; it goes to local authorities and local communities across Wales, and she should welcome that. The fact is that we have extended the hand of friendship to the Welsh Government. We want this to be a collaborative approach, and we very much welcome that being the case. This will involve local communities in a way that they have never been involved before, and she, of all people, should welcome that.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
Vale of Glamorgan received a tiny amount of European aid over the past 20 years despite having areas of significant deprivation. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me that the levelling-up fund and the community renewal fund will apply to Vale of Glamorgan—we have been ignored up until now—and that exciting projects such as Barry marina, St Athan train station and the Dinas Powys bypass could now become possible because of Union support?
Simon Hart
Who would ever dare ignore the efforts of my right hon. Friend? He is absolutely right that the local authority in his area will now have a chance to bid in a way that it never could before, and to bid with the strong and vigorous support that he provides. I think this is going to be a golden age for the vale.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
Wales will be better off as a result of the UK community renewal fund. Compared with its European predecessor, the new fund will be better targeted and better aligned with our domestic priorities, and will put decision making squarely into the hands of local authorities.
Wendy Chamberlain
According to the community renewal fund’s prospectus, the devolved Administrations will have a place within the governing structures, but when the Scottish Affairs Committee took evidence from academics a fortnight ago, we heard of confusion as to what role they would realistically play. So will the Minister set out exactly how the devolved Governments will be involved in the decision-making structures for how funds are released?
David T. C. Davies
Devolved Governments will be involved in the decisions, but so will the local Members of Parliament and local authorities, and I would have thought that the hon. Lady would support that. Only this morning, I read a fascinating article on that well-known website Liberal Democrat Voice, in which the leader of her council—a Liberal Democrat himself—called on the UK Government to step up and empower local authorities. That is exactly what we have done, so I look forward to being praised in the next edition of Lib Dem Voice.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
The Tories have repeatedly claimed that Wales would not be worse off when EU structural funds come to an end, but the community renewal fund of which the Minister spoke is a shocking betrayal of that commitment. The fund’s value—£220 million for the whole of the UK—is a just a fraction of the £375 million a year that Wales was promised. Why are communities in Wales once again having to foot the bill for the Tories’ broken promises?
David T. C. Davies
I am sorry to say that the hon. Gentleman, whom I greatly like and respect, perhaps has not been told that not only will the fund be there to enable access to the shared prosperity fund, but we will continue to receive European structural funding for the next three financial years at least. I looked this morning at the figures for European structural funds for Wales, and we will receive more on average next year than we have received previously, so there will actually be no loss of funding whatsoever as a result of coming out of the European Union.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
We have provided £2.75 billion in direct support for businesses in Wales during covid. The job retention scheme has been extended until September, and we are introducing a new super deduction to cut companies’ tax bills by 25p for every £1 they invest in new equipment.
Mark Tami
A recent report by Grant Thornton stated that Brexit could cost Flintshire and Wrexham as much as £300 million a year. Manufacturing is vital to the future of north Wales, but numerous companies are telling me of the difficulties they are having exporting. Instead of saying that everything will be fine, when are this Government going to sort these problems out and get this moving?
Simon Hart
I draw the right hon. Gentleman’s attention to the additional £5.2 billion we have provided to the Welsh Government and the £2.75 billion to businesses in Wales, with £1.5 billion in bounce bank loans and £503 million in coronavirus business interruption loans. This is all about jobs and livelihoods in the part of Wales that he represents so vigorously, and he should welcome that, as he should welcome the £20 million announcement this morning for the south Wales industrial cluster. There is good news, and he cannot dwell on the past in order to make political capital.
Chris Elmore
On 10 February, the Prime Minister said from the Dispatch Box that there would be a world-leading battery plant in Bridgend, but I think he meant the Vale of Glamorgan. It has been moved to Blyth because of investment from the Tory Government. The Secretary of State then decided to take to Twitter to praise the Prime Minister for announcing that the mythical battery plant was going to be in Bridgend. Could the Secretary of State set out when he will deliver a world-leading battery plant for the Bridgend county borough or, indeed, for the neighbouring Vale of Glamorgan, and when he will start bringing inward investment into the Bridgend borough? That would all be very welcome, because my constituents deserve a lot better than what the Secretary of State is currently not delivering.
Simon Hart
I think that the hon. Gentleman’s question was probably intended for the First Minister in Cardiff, but I will do my best to answer it anyway. As he well knows from the Prime Minister’s statement, there is considerable investment going into Wales. There are some really encouraging job prospects, particularly around gigafactories and the like.
Simon Hart
The hon. Gentleman can shake his head as much as he likes, but he fails to grasp that there are many millions and billions of pounds going into exactly these kinds of technology improvement in Wales.
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) [V]
Bridgend has lost the Ford factory, and we did not get the investment from Ineos that we were hoping for. For Bridgend and the wider area to move forward, the town needs regeneration in order to increase the attractiveness of the overall area for investment. Can my right hon. Friend outline what the Government are doing to help towns such as Bridgend?
Simon Hart
Absolutely. I start by reminding my hon. Friend—not that I need to—that Bridgend is a priority 1 area for the levelling-up fund, which means that it has potential access, with his assistance, to significant sums. Each local authority will get £125,000 of capacity funding to make those bids to the central fund. I hope he will recognise that there is a real focus on exactly the kind of town and area that he represents as part of the levelling-up project, which will produce jobs and livelihoods in a way that has perhaps been difficult in the past.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Highly skilled workers in the aerospace industry across Wales, such as those at AIM Altitude, are now facing redundancy or even factory closure, as this sector will take years, not months, to recover. While overseas competitors are giving their companies support so that they can up production when the sector recovers, the UK Government still have not brought forward a specific aerospace package some 12 months after the pandemic started. Is the Secretary of State just going to sit there and watch these industries fold, or can he persuade his Cabinet colleagues to put in the long-term support that these high-value industries need?
Simon Hart
The hon. Lady’s comments are not reflected by large companies, such as Airbus, whose judgment I trust in these particular circumstances. I simply repeat what I said in answer to an earlier question: the UK Government have provided £5.2 billion for the Welsh Government; £2.75 billion for businesses in Wales; another £1.5 billion in bounce back loans and £500 million in CBILS loans. If that is not an indication of how committed we are to this particular sector, which I absolutely recognise is going through an especially difficult time, I do not know what is.
Nia Griffith
But if we are going to retain these industries and rebuild for the future, then we need a comprehensive UK-wide plan. However, this Government have just shelved their industrial strategy, scrapped their advisory council and are now preparing to rip up their industrial policy, so when will the Secretary of State and his Cabinet colleagues develop a forward-looking, far-reaching UK industrial policy that will build on our fantastic skill base to guarantee the new green jobs of the future?
Simon Hart
I disagree with the hon. Lady’s comments. She has referred to some process issues. We want to get process and bureaucratic issues out of the way and actually deliver money and prospects, jobs and investments to the places that need them the most. That is what the Government are committed to doing, and we have widespread support from industry in that ambition. As I said in answer to an earlier question, only this morning a further £20 million has been announced for the South Wales industrial cluster. Rather than talk about process, bodies and bureaucracy, we are actually doing real things.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) [V]
Can I wish everybody celebrating a happy St Patrick’s Day today?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) has said, the Secretary of State will be more than aware of the complex challenges that coronavirus has presented to the aviation sector and the entire manufacturing supply chain. I hear what the Secretary of State says about Airbus, but sadly, General Electric and British Airways in my constituency of Pontypridd have had to make significant staffing cuts. This sector is crying out for financial support, but its pleas are falling on deaf ears, so will the Secretary of State therefore please update the House on his recent conversations, specifically with the Chancellor, on a sector-specific support package for Wales’s aviation industry?
Simon Hart
The Chancellor has, I think, made it very clear how he is supporting every sector that has been so adversely affected by the coronavirus. In fact, I do not think there is a Government in the world who have done as much in financial support either for this sector or, indeed, other sectors or individual families. That has been to the huge credit of the Treasury and all those who have been part of the team that has been able to do that. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecast for economic recovery next year and the year after is a testament to that, and that should benefit this sector just as much as it does everything else.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
The levelling-up fund is unquestionably good news for Wales. It will ensure that millions of pounds is invested in Welsh local authorities, providing much-needed local infrastructure and driving up regeneration in left-behind places.
Simon Baynes [V]
Would the Minister meet me about, and visit when possible, exciting projects in Clwyd South that fulfil the requirements of the levelling-up fund, such as Wrexham Council’s bold regeneration plans and the reopening of Corwen station in Denbighshire on the Llangollen steam railway?
David T. C. Davies
I assure my hon. Friend that it is always a pleasure to meet him and hear about the enormous amount of hard work he is undertaking in his constituency. Unfortunately, I have been advised that it would not be appropriate for me to visit any specific project site, but I of course look forward to supporting him and other Members of Parliament who continue the work of using the funds being made available by the UK Government to drive forward regeneration in their constituencies.
Fay Jones [V]
I was delighted to see so much in the Budget for Brecon and Radnorshire. The levelling-up fund is extremely welcome, as is the commitment to the global centre for rail excellence in Coelbren in my constituency. However, parts of Brecon and Radnorshire are plagued by substandard broadband and mobile coverage. Could the Minister confirm that the levelling-up fund will make a genuine difference to structural problems like this that hold back rural areas such as mine?
David T. C. Davies
We expect that the levelling-up fund can be used to invest in community infrastructure right the way across the board. Of course, the UK gigabit programme will invest in broadband and the hardest-to-connect areas of the United Kingdom. I was also delighted, of course, with the news about the global centre for rail excellence—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pushed very hard for it—which is also going to be good news for the economy in that part of Wales.
Beth Winter [V]
Given that the Welsh Government have worked with Welsh local authorities and other stakeholders to produce a framework for regional investment, can the Minister tell the House why Ministers at England’s Housing Department, with no history of delivering within Wales and no record of working with communities in Wales or understanding their priorities, are the right people to be administering this so-called levelling-up fund in Wales? Is this the result of this Government’s fixation with undermining democratic devolution?
David T. C. Davies
That was a rather disappointing question from the hon. Lady. The Chancellor has made £800 million available for the devolved Administrations across the United Kingdom and wants the UK Government to be able to work directly with local authorities and to hear about what their priorities are. I think it is absolutely fantastic that the Chancellor, as well as being able to deliver that £800 million, has found £740 million for the Welsh Government and has continued the support for businesses and individuals in Wales affected by the covid crisis. Perhaps I can pass the hon. Lady’s congratulations on to the Government for a fantastic Budget for Wales.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
Earlier this month, the Chancellor committed £4.8 million to the Holyhead hydrogen hub project. Offshore wind in Wales is going from strength to strength, with the potential for a 1.5 gigawatt project in north Wales and growing interest in floating wind off the south-west Wales coast.
Miss Dines [V]
Green issues affect the whole of this Union; does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important not only that Wales capitalises on new and innovative green industries, but that it continues to decarbonise the heavy industry it already has given that over 10 megatons of carbon emissions were generated by businesses and industries in Wales alone last year?
Simon Hart
As I mentioned in answer to an earlier question, only today there has been an announcement of a further £20 million for the South Wales industrial cluster to develop an industrial decarbonisation plan. The 10-point plan and our net zero ambitions will create 250,000 jobs across the UK, and I am absolutely determined to ensure Wales gets more than its fair share of them.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
Cutting crime is an absolute priority for the UK Government. We are working cross-Government with local partners to address the drivers behind drug-related crime, to help prevent further substance misuse and offending.
Alexander Stafford [V]
From the village of Wales in Rother Valley to the great country of Wales, drug usage, including in the form of nitrous oxide capsules, is a huge blight on our communities. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that the law is rigorously enforced, and even tightened, in regard to nitrous oxide so that everyone, particularly young people, is protected from this noxious substance?
Simon Hart
My hon. Friend points to a crucial approach, and it is worth pointing out that these awful crimes do not respect political or geographical borders; they are international problems and UK problems. Therefore, one way of approaching this is to make sure UK police forces can collaborate effectively cross-border, and that is what they are doing. My hon. Friend might have heard of Project Adder, the trial in Swansea bay, and of course seen some of the benefits from the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
I have regular discussions with the First Minister of Wales and his ministerial team on a range of issues, including the UK shared prosperity fund. The Government will continue to engage with the Welsh Government as we develop the fund’s investment framework, which will be published later this year.
Wayne David [V]
Will the shared prosperity fund allocate resources on the basis of need?
Simon Hart
Absolutely; that underpins the entire thrust of a number of these funds. We are attempting to prioritise areas with greatest need and where there is opportunity and challenges so that we get the money to the right places at the right time as fast as we can. One of the bits of feedback we get from local communities is that there seems to be a lot of money talked about but it never quite gets to the right place; this new initiative provides a much quicker and better way, involving local authorities, to get over that problem.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
On top of the new UK-wide funds, £4.8 million has been committed to the Holyhead hydrogen hub, up to £30 million to the global centre of rail excellence, and we are accelerating funding for the growth deals in Wales.
Antony Higginbotham
In north Wales, just as in Burnley, there is a strong and proud aerospace manufacturing sector. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Chancellor’s super deduction, announced at the Budget, could be transformational for that sector, allowing it to invest in equipment and machinery that will create jobs and boost productivity?
Simon Hart
My hon. Friend does not have to take it from me; he makes a very good point and I have to tell him, from the number of stakeholder engagements we have had in the Wales Office, including with that sector, that the reception to this particular recommendation has been fantastic. It is transformational. This is the first time this has ever been done—probably the biggest tax cut in history. That is the sort of thing that will regenerate jobs and livelihoods at a time when they are most needed, and I congratulate the Chancellor on his efforts.
Mr Speaker
Congratulations to the Wales Office team; we have finished the whole of Welsh questions.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
I am sure colleagues across the House will want to join me in wishing everyone a very happy St Patrick’s day. I was delighted to visit Northern Ireland last week, where I was able to thank military and emergency response teams for their brilliant work throughout the covid-19 pandemic.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Simon Fell
A decade ago, GlaxoSmithKline announced a £350 million investment in my constituency, which would have led to 1,000 jobs. In 2017, it reneged on that, and a few weeks ago it announced that it is closing its business altogether. We have gone from the very real prospect of having 1,000 high-paying, high-skilled pharma jobs in my constituency to the risk of having none by 2025. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me and throw the weight of the Government behind efforts to ensure that GSK does the right thing by my constituents and delivers for some very worried people?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend very much, and I express my deepest sympathy to all those in Ulverston affected by these job losses. I will certainly meet him. I believe that bioscience is one of the great growth areas for this country in the future, and I am determined that Barrow and Furness should take part in that boom along with everywhere else, as well as other high technologies.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
May I join the Prime Minister in his comments about St Patrick’s day?
My thoughts, and I am sure those across the whole House, are with the family and friends of Sarah Everard, who will be suffering unspeakable grief. There are five words that will stick with us for a very long time: she was just walking home.
Sometimes, a tragedy is so shocking that it demands both justice and change. The Stephen Lawrence case showed the poison of structural and institutional racism. The James Bulger case made us question the nature of our society and the safety of our children. Now the awful events of the last week have lifted a veil on the epidemic of violence against women and girls. This must also be a watershed moment, to change how we as a society treat women and girls, and how we prevent and end sexual violence and harassment.
I believe that, if we work together, we can achieve that, and the questions I ask today are in that spirit. First, does the Prime Minister agree that this must be a turning point in how we tackle violence against women and girls?
The Prime Minister
Yes I do, and I associate myself fully with the remarks that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made about the appalling murder of Sarah Everard. I am sure that those emotions are shared in this House and around the country.
That event has triggered a reaction that I believe is wholly justified and understandable, and of course we in government are doing everything that we can. We are investing in the Crown Prosecution Service, trying to speed up the law; we are changing the law on domestic violence, and many, many other things. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right, frankly, that unless and until we have a change in our culture that acknowledges and understands that women currently do not feel they are being heard, we will not fix this problem. That is what we must do. We need a cultural and social change in attitudes to redress the balance. That is what I believe all politicians must now work together to achieve.
Keir Starmer
I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. In that spirit, can I turn to the practical challenges we face if we are collectively to rise to this moment? The first challenge is that many, many women and girls feel unsafe on our streets, particularly at night. What is needed is legal protection. That is why we have called for a specific new law on street harassment and for toughening the law on stalking. Both, I think, are absolutely vital if we are going to make meaningful change in the everyday experiences of women and girls. So can the Prime Minister commit to taking both of those measures forward?
The Prime Minister
We are always happy to look at new proposals. What we are already doing is introducing tougher sanctions on stalkers. That is already being brought in and we are bringing in new measures to make the streets safer. Of course that is the right thing to do. Last night there was a Bill before the House on police, crime and sentencing, which did a lot to protect women and girls. It would have been good, in a cross-party way, to have had the support of the Opposition.
Keir Starmer
I will come to last night’s Bill later, but it did say a lot more about protecting statues than it did about protecting women.
Let me, if I may, given the gravity of the situation, continue in the spirit so far. I thank the Prime Minister for his answer. The next practical challenge is that many, many women and girls who are subjected to sexual violence do not feel confident to come forward and report what has happened to them. Nine out of 10 do not do so. We have to improve the support that is provided for victims.
The Victims’ Commissioner published a report last month with 32 recommendations about this. This week, Labour produced a detailed survivor support plan, and five years ago I introduced a private Member’s Bill, with cross-party support, for a victims’ law to give legally enforceable rights to victims. The shadow victims Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), has tabled a similar victims’ Bill that is before Parliament now. It is ready to go. All it needs is the political will to act. So will the Prime Minister commit now not just to the idea of a victims’ law, which I think he supports, but to a tight timetable, of ideally six months or so, to actually implement such a law?
The Prime Minister
As I say, I would be very happy to look at new proposals from all sides of the House on this issue. That is why we are conducting an end-to-end review of the law on rape and how it works, and investing in the criminal justice system to speed up cases and give women and girls the confidence they need. The point the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes about victims and their need to feel confident in coming forward is absolutely right. That is why we have put £100 million so far into services for dealing with violence against women and girls, particularly independent domestic violence advisers and independent sexual violence advisers. I do not pretend that these are the entire solution; they are part of the solution. It is also vital that we have long- term cultural, societal change to deal with this issue.
Keir Starmer
I agree with the Prime Minister on that last point. Can I gently remind him that for 10 years this Government have been promising a victims’ law? I think it has been in his party’s last three manifestos. It still has not materialised. We do not need more reviews, consultations, strategies. The conversations our shadow Minister is having with Government—constructive conversations—are exactly the same conversations that I had five years ago: constructive conversations. We just need now to get on with it.
Let me press on with the practical challenges. The next challenge is this. For many, many women and girls who do come forward to report sexual violence, no criminal charges are brought. Only 1.5% of rapes reported to the police lead to a prosecution. Put the other way, 98.5% of reported rapes do not lead to a prosecution. That is a shocking statistic. I appreciate that efforts are being made to improve the situation, but can the Prime Minister tell us: what is he going to do about this not in a few years’ time, not next year, but now?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely right. I agree with him; one of the first things I said when I became Prime Minister was that I believed that the prosecution rates for rape were a disgrace in this country. We need to sort it out. That is why we are investing in confidence-building measures, such as ISVAs and IDVAs, and investing in the Crown Prosecution Service in trying to speed up the process of the law to give people confidence that their cases will be heard in due time. We are also doing what we can to toughen the penalties for those men—I am afraid it is overwhelmingly men—who commit these crimes. I think it would have been a good thing if, last night, the whole House could have voted for tougher sentences for those who commit sexual and violent offences and to stop people from being released early. In that collegiate spirit, I ask him to work together with us.
Keir Starmer
I was Director of Public Prosecutions for five years and spent every day prosecuting serious crime, including terrorism, sexual violence and rape, so I really do not need lectures about how to enforce the criminal law.
Walking on through the system, as many women and girls have to do, and facing up to the challenges that we need to face as a House, the next challenge is the point that the Prime Minister just referenced—the sentences for rape and sexual violence, because they need to be toughened. Let me give the House three examples. John Patrick, convicted of raping a 13-year-old girl, received a seven-year sentence. Orlando and Costanzo, who were convicted of raping a woman in a nightclub, received a seven-and-a-half-year sentence. James Reeve, convicted of raping a seven-year-old girl, received a nine-year sentence. Does the Prime Minister agree that we need urgently to look at this and to toughen sentences for rape and serious sexual violence?
The Prime Minister
Would it not be a wonderful thing if there was a Bill going through the House of Commons that did exactly that? Would it not be a wonderful thing if there were measures to defend women and girls from violent and sex criminals? Would it not be a wonderful thing if there was a Bill before the House to have tougher sentences for child murderers and tougher punishments for sex offenders? That would be a fine thing. As it happens, there is such a Bill before the House. I think it would be a great thing if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had actually voted for it. He still has time. This Bill is still before the House. He can lift his opposition. They actually voted against it on a three-line Whip and I think that was crazy.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister mentions the Bill last night. That provided for longer maximum sentences for damaging a memorial than the sentences imposed in the three cases of rape I have referred the House to, which were all less than 10 years. I thank the Prime Minister for providing me with the best examples of why the priorities in his Bill were so wrong. Nothing in that Bill would have increased the length of sentence in any of those rape cases—nothing in that Bill.
Let me try to return to the constructive spirit, because I think that is demanded of all of us. If this House came together on the points raised today, and there has been agreement across the Dispatch Boxes, it would make a real difference to victims of crime. This week, Labour published a 10-point plan. We published a victims’ law. In coming days, we are going to publish amendments in relation to the criminal justice system to make it work better. I do not expect the Prime Minister to agree with all of this and, frankly, I do not care if this becomes a Government Bill or Conservative legislation. All I care about is whether we make progress, so will the Prime Minister meet me, the shadow Home Secretary—my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds)—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) and victims’ groups, who have spent many years campaigning on this, so that we can really and truly make this a turning point?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the collegiate way in which he is addressing this and the way in which he is reaching out across the Chamber. I think that is entirely right in the circumstances, but I do think that he should not misrepresent what the Bill was trying to do. The average sentence for rape is already nine years and nine months, as he knows full well, and the maximum sentence is already life. What we are trying to do is stiffen the sentences for a variety of offences to protect women and girls and others, and that is entirely the right thing to do.
We will go on with our agenda to deliver on the people’s priorities, rolling out more police—7,000 we have already—investing in ISVAs and IDVAs and doing our utmost to accelerate the grinding processes of the criminal justice system, which, as he rightly says, are such a deterrent to women coming forward to complain as they rightly should. Until we sort out that fundamental problem, and until women feel that their voices are being heard and their complaints are being addressed by society, we will not fix this problem. I warmly welcome what he suggests about wanting to fix it together, and I hope that, in that spirit, he can bring himself to vote for the tougher sentences that we have set out.
Mr Speaker
We have to be a little bit careful, because nobody would misrepresent anyone in this House.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I think Cornwall is the Klondike of lithium, as far as I understand the matter, and I would be delighted to assist my hon. Friend in locating a gigafactory somewhere near Cornwall—I do not want to promise too much at this stage.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) [V]
May I wish everyone a happy St Patrick’s day?
Across Scotland this week, a tale of two Governments with two very different sets of values has again been exposed. Yesterday, the Scottish National party Government passed landmark legislation that will put the UN convention on the rights of the child into Scots law, putting children at the vanguard of children’s rights. In contrast, we have a UK Government who have to be shamed into providing free school meals, who will clap for nurses but will not give them a fair wage, and who plough billions into a nuclear arsenal that sits redundant on the Clyde. Does the Prime Minister understand that the Scottish people are best served by a Government who live up to their values—a Government who prioritise bairns not bombs?
The Prime Minister
I think what the people of Scotland need and deserve is a Government who tackle the problems of education in Scotland, a Government who address themselves to fighting crime and drug addiction in Scotland, and a Government who can wean themselves off their addiction to constitutional change and constitutional argument, because they seem, in the middle of a pandemic when the country is trying to move forward together, to be obsessed with nothing else—nothing else—but breaking up the country and a reckless referendum.
Ian Blackford
Of course, this is Prime Minister’s questions, and maybe the Prime Minister might, just once, try to answer the question that is put to him. We are talking about a Tory plan to impose a 40% increase in nuclear warheads. Our children have the right to a future that no longer lives under the shadow of these weapons of mass destruction. As the Irish President said on this St Patrick’s day, we need to find ways to make peace, not war. Every single one of those weapons will be based on the Clyde, so can the Prime Minister tell us exactly when the Scottish people gave him the moral or democratic authority to impose those weapons of mass destruction on our soil in Scotland?
The Prime Minister
The people of Scotland contribute enormously to the health, happiness, wellbeing and security of the entire country, not least through their contribution to our science, our defences, our international aid and in many other ways. I am very proud that this Government are investing record sums in defence, including maintaining our nuclear defence, which is absolutely vital for our long-term security, and helping, thereby, to drive jobs not just in Scotland, but across the UK.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a fantastic advocate for Doncaster, and he is right to campaign in the way he does. I wish I could give him a cut-and-dried yes or no answer today, but I can tell him that his local trust is very much in the running in the current open competition for the next eight hospitals, on top of the 40 that we are already building.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The creation of a no-protest zone around Parliament, a 266% increase from a maximum of three months to 11 months’ imprisonment for protest organisers, a direct attack on the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community, up to 10 years in prison for any offence committed by destroying or damaging a memorial, and criminalising people for taking part in protests where they ought to have known police conditions were in place. Does the Prime Minister agree that if the UK is to be a force for good in a world where democracy is “in retreat”, as the Foreign Secretary is saying today, it needs to start at home with the protection of the long-standing, precious and fundamental right to peaceful protest, which is a cornerstone of liberal democracy?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is quite right to stick up for peaceful protest, and I understand and sympathise with that, but there are a couple of points. First, we are facing a pandemic in which, alas, we have to restrict human contact—[Interruption.] Although the hon. Lady shakes her head, I think the people of this country do understand that and do understand the restrictions we are now under.
I think we also have to strike a balance between the need to allow peaceful protests to go ahead, and we do on a huge scale in this country, and the need to protect free speech and vital parts of the UK economy.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend perfectly sums up the balance that we are trying to strike between allowing people, in a reasonable way, to go about their daily lives and bringing in tougher sentences for child murderers, tougher punishments for sex offenders, and stopping the continuing practice of allowing people out early. I think that is what the people of this country want to see. That is what they voted for in 2019, and I hope the Opposition can bring themselves, one day, to support it.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am afraid that the hon. Lady is completely right, and I know that she speaks for many women up and down the country. We can do all the things we have talked about, two men arguing over the Dispatch Box. We can bring in more laws and tougher sentences, which I hope she will support. We can support independent domestic violence and sexual violence advisers. We can do all that kind of thing, but we have to address the fundamental issue of the casual everyday sexism and apathy that fail to address the concerns of women. That is the underlying issue.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend very much for everything she is doing to campaign for freedom of religion and belief. I am very pleased that we are going to be holding an international conference on this issue. That is exactly what global Britain is all about: promoting freedom of expression, and freedom of belief and religion.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister
I think that was a veiled attempt, again, by the SNP to ask for another referendum, which is its habitual refrain. That is all it seems able to talk about: wrangling about democracy and its desire to be separated and to break up the country. I do not think that is the right way forward. I think we need strong defences. That is what the people of this country voted for and that is what we are going to deliver.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
Of course, I thank the NHS in Hampshire, and indeed around the country, for the amazing job it is doing in rolling out the vaccination programme—it has been truly stunning. Perhaps the best thing I can say about the Oxford-AstraZeneca programme is that I have finally got news that I am going to have my own jab very shortly; I am pleased to discover that. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has had his. [Interruption.] He has had his. It will certainly be the Oxford-AstraZeneca jab that I will be having.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The Prime Minister
I think “needless” is the right word, and the hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that any strike is likely to be bad news for motorists. We are at the stage now where we are advancing down our road map out of lockdown, and at the DVLA any staff who can work from home are doing so. Out of a workforce of 6,000, only five cases of covid have currently been found, and I understand that those individuals are all working from home. Frankly, I see no need for industrial action.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
I know how much my hon. Friend cares about this issue and how deeply her constituents have been affected by the Grenfell fire. I will study her proposal for a new tax on building materials, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will want to think about that kind of idea. We are looking at new rules to exclude contractors from Government business where gross professional negligence has been shown.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) [V]
The Prime Minister
I certainly take full responsibility for everything the Government did, and of course we mourn the loss of every single coronavirus victim, and we sympathise deeply with their families and their loved ones. Am I sorry for what has happened to our country? Yes of course I am deeply, deeply sorry, and of course there will be a time for a full inquiry to enable us all to understand what we need to do better when we face these problems in the future, and that is something I think the whole House shares.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a really good point about the mental health impacts of flooding. Anybody who has been a victim of flooding or who visits a family that has been hit by flooding will know the immense distress that flooding causes. That is why the NHS will get an extra £500 million to address those issues and to give more support for the mental health needs.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Lady just said “you.” We cannot use “you.” I am not responsible for this.
Liz Twist
Apologies. The Prime Minister vowed to do his utmost to get Samantha access to life-changing drug Kuvan. Last month NICE published draft guidance, which would make Kuvan available to children but not to adults like Samantha—great for children, but devastating and discriminatory for adults like Samantha. Prime Minister, speaking as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on PKU, I now ask, what action will you take to deliver on your commitment to Samantha Parker, and make Kuvan available for her and for other adults with PKU?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady very much for raising the case, which I well remember. I am glad that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has now extended the treatment’s availability to children with PKU. Clearly, we need to do more, and I am very happy to take it up.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the integrated review. It is hard to know what motivates our friends in the Scottish national party, but I think that they are mistaken in their approach. We are better as one United Kingdom; we are stronger together as one United Kingdom; and the contribution of the people of Scotland to the defence of our United Kingdom is absolutely incredible, and has been for centuries. That is what I want to maintain—I think it is a fine thing, and they should champion it.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) [V]
Throughout the past year, NHS staff have been working tirelessly to keep our communities healthy and safe during the pandemic. I would like to ask the Prime Minister why he has been economical with the truth, when he says that a 1% pay increase is all that the Government can afford.
Mr Speaker
May I just say that no hon. Member on any side would actually mislead or lie to the House? But I am sure that the Prime Minister can answer something.
The Prime Minister
Thank you, Mr Speaker. No—I am grateful for your clarification—because what we are doing is saying that we so value the incredible contribution of nurses to our country over the past year or more that we want them, exceptionally of all the public services, to be looked at for a pay increase at a time of real difficulty in the public finances, which I think people understand. That is on top of the 12.8% increase in starting salary for nurses, plus the £5,000 bursary and the £3,000 that we have given for special help for childcare and other training needs.
If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures, he will see that they are leading to a big increase in the number of nurses in the NHS—10,600 more this year than last year; more nurses in the NHS—and 60,000 more in training. When I talk to nurses—of course everyone wants better pay and conditions; I totally understand that—they say what they also want is an extra pair of hands next to them to give them the help and reassurance that they need. That is what we are recruiting for.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
The Prime Minister
It was certainly a mistake, and a regrettable mistake, for anybody to suggest that rape had been decriminalised in this country, because we must do everything we can to reassure victims of rape and sexual violence and get them to come forward. That is what we are doing. I also think it would be a good thing if, together, we could vote for some of the tougher sentences that we have put forward in the Bill. I liked the collegiate spirit that we had earlier on, and I hope it can be extended to voting for the tougher sentences that we have put forward.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Today the Welsh Labour Government have announced a special bonus payment for NHS and social care staff in Wales, with the Government covering the basic tax and national insurance so that most people will receive around £500. Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming that payment in recognition of the dedication and commitment of our NHS and social care staff?
The Prime Minister
I do indeed recognise the amazing dedication and commitment of NHS and social care staff who have been at the forefront of this pandemic and who have borne the brunt of it, personally in many cases. That is why I will repeat the point I made a little while ago about what we are doing to recognise the contribution of the public sector, and nurses in particular, in these very difficult times, and say how relieved and glad I am to see the number of nurses now in training. I think there has been a 34% increase in applications to be nurses this year in this country. That is great, but we are going to drive things forward. We have a target of 50,000 more nurses, as well as 20,000 more police.
Mr Speaker
I am suspending the House to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Education Employment (Accompaniment To Hearings)
Wednesday 17th March 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Education Employment (Accompaniment to Hearings) Bill 2019-21 View all Education Employment (Accompaniment to Hearings) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that teachers and other education staff may choose to be accompanied to disciplinary or grievance hearings by a person other than a trade union representative or colleague; and for connected purposes.
For anyone in any profession, a disciplinary or grievance hearing is daunting, but for teachers these hearings can be acutely so. False allegations of misconduct are all too common within the teaching profession, but their ramifications can be uniquely damaging, often shattering careers and tarnishing respectable reputations.
As a Member of Parliament, I have spoken to many teachers who have found themselves subject to false allegations. One teacher, who must remain anonymous, was suspended from teaching for 12 months when their school, under pressure from some parents, was deemed to have inadequately followed safeguarding procedures. That teacher was not just suspended for more than 12 months, unable to teach, but dismissed from their role at the school and referred to the Teaching Regulation Agency for serious misconduct. However, with significant support—accompaniment at hearings and representation at tribunals—the teacher was found not to have committed any such misconduct and their dismissal was, thankfully, successfully challenged. Without such support, this excellent teacher may never have taught again.
I regret to say that such cases are not uncommon. For teachers, third party accompaniment at a disciplinary or grievance hearing is crucial. Third parties can help to codify situations, provide objective guidance and offer reassurance in what can often be fractious, distressing and highly charged situations. To that extent, all employees and workers should have equal employment status under the law, regardless of their trade union membership status, but as it stands, section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 does not offer fair accompaniment to the 77% of workers who are not members of a trade union.
At present, section 10 dictates that workers are legally entitled to accompaniment to disciplinary or grievance hearings only by a trade union representative or colleague. That means that a trade union member can be accompanied by almost anyone, from a local union rep to a QC, as long as they are employed by a school or the trade union. But what about those teachers who are not members of a trade union either by choice or by accident? It seems unlikely that a colleague would be trained and experienced to the same extent as a union representative, but that is the only option for the 77% of workers who are not members of a trade union. Although employers can agree to alternative accompaniment, it is at their exclusive discretion, so, right out of the blocks, many workers are left to their own devices, with the chances of a positive outcome stacked against them. Put simply, they are legally disadvantaged by the constraints of the Employment Relations Act, which deprives them of a right to fair accompaniment by a reasonably qualified companion.
It does not have to be like this. Accompaniment is a positive action: it is positive for workers; positive for trade unions; and positive for employers. It is widely accepted that trained and experienced companions are beneficial to both parties at disciplinary or grievance hearings. To that extent, the Bill seeks a simple change to the law to allow accompaniment for teachers at disciplinary or grievance hearings by someone other than a work colleague or union representative. It is likely that the companion might be somebody appropriately trained and experienced and, in some cases, legally qualified. I would endorse a system of accreditation to protect the integrity of the process. What I cannot endorse is the current situation whereby teachers’ statutory rights are dependent on their membership of a trade union.
This Bill is about levelling up the teaching profession. It is about strengthening the role of teachers. It is about the promotion of equal rights in the workplace, and it is about closing a gap in the law. It is a pro-worker move that costs nothing and hurts no one. It is not even a proposal without precedent. In 2008, the fifth report of the House of Commons Children, Schools and Families Committee called on the Government to enshrine in law teachers’
“right to have legal representation or to be accompanied by a trade union representative, whichever they prefer, in all disciplinary hearings.”
Despite that, over a decade has passed, and the gap remains wide open.
This Bill is also about creating greater parity between employers and employees. As it stands, employers are free to have whoever they choose present to support, including legally qualified individuals, yet teachers’ accompaniment rights are much more limited, damaging their prospects and creating an asymmetrical relationship from the outset.
Fundamentally, these proposals are about choice. No one should feel pressurised into joining a trade union for the legal protections alone, but sadly, that seems to be the case, with polls showing that teachers join trade unions largely for legal support in the face of allegations. In fact, a survey of 6,900 teachers just last year showed that one in four teachers would leave their union if they could benefit from alternative legal support in employment disputes. Take Amy Forrester, a secondary school English teacher and director of pastoral care. Amy is not a union member but told me that, even as a Labour voter, none of the unions represents her current views as a teacher. Amy subscribes to one of the alternatives, Edapt, but like me, she strongly believes that her accompaniment rights should be dictated by personal choice rather than by the status of her union membership.
I want to make one point clear: this Bill is not an attack on trade unions. It does not seek to diminish their power or influence. It does not seek to undermine the valuable work they do, the accompaniment they provide or the legal representation that they can offer. Rather, it seeks to enhance and protect workers’ rights for teachers. It seeks to modernise existing legislation, and it seeks to recognise that all teachers deserve full legal protection against damaging and often false allegations.
For me, the core principle of this Bill is fairness. As a former teacher and headteacher, I want members of my former profession to feel confident in their position. I want them to feel secure, and I want them to feel protected. Teachers have given so much throughout this pandemic. They have adapted quickly to new ways of working, and they have provided a safe haven for many children during this immensely difficult time. In proposing this Bill, I hope to make it clear that all—not some—teachers deserve robust protection in disciplinary or grievance hearings. As we know, allegations of misconduct can be more damaging for teachers than virtually any other profession, so it makes no sense that the law discriminates in this way.
It is time for change, and it is time to align the rights of those who are not trade union members with the rights of those who are. As I said earlier, this Bill costs nothing and hurts no one. It simply closes a gap in the law—a gap that for too long has prohibited fairness and choice. I hope that the Government will support this Bill, to bring an end to the inequitable and selective nature of existing legislation. I commend this measure to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Brendan Clarke-Smith, Andrew Lewer, Andrew Percy, Caroline Ansell, Damian Hinds, Jim Shannon, Jonathan Gullis, Robert Halfon, Scott Benton, Selaine Saxby, Tim Loughton and Virginia Crosbie present the Bill.
Brendan Clarke-Smith accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 276).
Opposition Day
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Scotland: General Election and Constitutional Future
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:05 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 53 / Noes: 362 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:17 - The House divided: - Ayes: 369 / Noes: 55 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
I inform the House that I have selected amendment (b) in the name of the Prime Minister.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the upcoming Scottish Parliamentary general election and Scotland’s right to choose its constitutional future.
We have been waiting a while for a third party Opposition day, so I am delighted that we get to set the agenda today. The timing of this debate could not be more apposite. On 6 May, Scotland goes to the polls for a general election to the Scottish Parliament. The consequences of the outcome of that election could be profound, both for Scotland and for the rest of the United Kingdom, so it is fitting that this Parliament gets an opportunity—perhaps its last opportunity—to debate what it thinks of that before the campaign starts and before the election takes place. I hope we can have a thoughtful and considered discussion about the political principles that will infuse that campaign, and perhaps leave behind some of the more intemperate remarks that are often a hallmark of the campaign itself.
To understand what is happening currently in Scotland, we need to start with two facts. The first is that Scotland is not a region of a unitary state seeking secession from it; it is a country that has been in existence for many centuries. Indeed, it is a nation that is, by voluntary association, part of a multinational state that we call the United Kingdom. The second fact is that in determining how consent to that voluntary association should be given, the people of Scotland are ultimately sovereign in making the decision.
The claim to be sovereign has been around for at least eight centuries, but in the modern era it was codified in 1989 by the Scottish constitutional convention in a document called “A Claim of Right for Scotland”, which asserted that the people of Scotland have the right to determine the form of government best suited to their needs. For a while that claim, which underpinned the 20 years of policy and argument that was to follow, was relatively uncontroversial. In fact, even in 2014 the Scottish Conservative party issued a statement saying that although it did not think that the people of Scotland should vote for independence, it very much endorsed and agreed with their right to do so.
On 18 September 2014, the claim was put into practice and there was a living experience of that right being exercised in the referendum on whether Scotland should become an independent country. Even after the referendum, the Smith commission noted in 2016 that nothing in its report would preclude the people of Scotland voting to become an independent country in the future. As late as 2018, which seems only a blink of an eye away, we discussed the claim of right in this Chamber, and this Parliament and this House reaffirmed their commitment to the principle.
I remember that debate, and particularly the contribution of the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). He felt frustrated and aggrieved; although he agreed with and supported the claim of right, he thought that my party was acting in bad faith, because the claim of right had been exercised at the referendum and we did not respect the result and the judgment of the people of Scotland in exercising their self-determination to remain in the United Kingdom. In fact, that is not true. We very much respect the decision that was taken on 18 December 2014. Indeed, had it not been for the will of the people to do otherwise, that might have been the end of the matter for a very considerable period of time. But the fact is that it was not.
A claim of right is not something that can exist on the day of the referendum and then cease to exist the day after. If it is a right, it must exist for all time. It does not have a self-destruct mechanism within it. It cannot be invalidated simply by its exercising.
Several hon. Members rose—
Tommy Sheppard
I have an embarrassment of riches. I give way first to the hon. Member for Redcar (Jacob Young).
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is recalling all these different examples of when people have discussed the claim of right; does he remember when the leader of his party said of the 2014 referendum that it was a “once-in-a-generation” referendum?
Tommy Sheppard
All good things come to those who wait, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will be dealing with the “once in a generation” tagline later in my speech.
On referendums and whether they should take place, the question will arise as to who should make the decision. If we believe in the will of the Scottish people to choose their own destiny, then the answer can only be that the people of Scotland should decide whether to have another referendum. I accept that there needs to be a debate about how we gauge their opinion and what democratic mechanism is used for them to express their view. Well, democratic societies will quite often do that by using the electoral process and the process of voting, and in 2016 that is exactly what happened. My party did not go into the election in 2016 saying, “There must be another referendum and, 18 months forward, we disrespect the decision that was taken.” We went to the polls saying: “It looks like things are beginning to happen in the UK that will change the whole nature of the options available to people, and there may be circumstances in which it would be legitimate and proper to go forward and reconsider the question again in a second referendum.” That was the mandate that we were given by the people of Scotland in 2016.
That was six weeks before the Brexit vote in the UK, and no one could have anticipated what would unfold in the years after the May 2016 general election in Scotland. People in England voted by a small majority to leave the European Union and people in Scotland voted, by a much larger majority, to stay in the European Union. Overall, the vote was such that there was a narrow majority to leave, and the British Government began the tortuous process of extricating the United Kingdom from the European Union. That process was made all the more difficult and painful by the Government’s decision not to try to accommodate any of the wishes of the people on the losing side of the argument and to seek the maximum possible dissociation from the European Union. That is what happened, and we remember the agonising twists and turns in that process.
As 2018 moved into 2019 and we watched the process unfold, two things became clear. First, the opinion of the people of Scotland in the matter was to be completely disregarded. Unlike in other parts of the United Kingdom where there was an attempt to try to make the decision that was being implemented fit the aspirations of people who lived there, there was no such attempt in Scotland.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
But the fact remains that Brexit has happened, so an independent Scotland would have to apply to rejoin the EU. Leaving aside whether it would be wise for Scotland to replace union with a country that is right next door to it with one with a body that is hundreds of miles away, why does the hon. Gentleman think that Spain, with its problems of Catalonia, would ever facilitate Scotland rejoining the EU?
Tommy Sheppard
That is not the subject of today’s debate, but it only takes a cursory reading of statements from European premiers to see that their mood has completely changed and they would welcome, many of them with open arms, a self-governing Scotland into the European Union. But we are getting ahead of ourselves, because we have not yet had the ability to take that decision.
As the Brexit process unfolded, two things became clear. One was that Scotland’s views were to be completely disregarded, but even more worryingly, we saw the British Government begin to put in place mechanisms to replace the jurisdiction of the European Union that would centralise political power in this country and reduce the capacity and competence of the devolved Administrations in Holyrood and, indeed, Cardiff.
By the end of 2019 it became clear that those two things were creating a fundamentally different terrain on which the future of the United Kingdom and the future of Scotland should be judged. It was the determination of the Scottish Parliament by resolution at that time that the conditions set in the mandate of 2016 had been met and that that mandate should now be discharged. Therefore, the Scottish Parliament voted and applied to the British Government for a section 30 order to begin the process of having a further referendum. The response by the Prime Minister was fast and furious, and he dismissed it out of hand.
We were about to get into an argument about that when the world literally turned upside down and a small microbe brought humanity almost to its knees. As covid-19 raced across the globe, and as our economy and society ground to a halt, the Scottish Government—rightly, in my view—decided to shelve any preparations or plans for a further referendum until that matter was dealt with. Had the pandemic not happened, we might well be having a very different discussion today. But we are where we are, and we are 51 days away from the Scottish general election, at which the existing mandate will expire. At that election, my party and others will be seeking a new, fresh mandate from the Scottish people to assert their right to choose whether they wish to remain in a post-Brexit Britain, or whether Scotland’s fortunes are better served by having a choice and becoming a self-governing independent European country. That is what will be at stake in the 2021 election.
Unlike 2016, the mandate we seek will not be conditional, have qualifications or be reliant on things that may or may not happen. It will be unconditional and without qualification, and it will be front and centre on page 1 of our manifesto. I think it is a racing certainty—Government Members can tell me if I am wrong—that the inverse proposition will be front and centre of the Conservative manifesto as well. We can be sure of one thing, which is that there will be a full and frank debate about this question, and a vote will be taken on 6 May 2021.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman said that page 1 will obviously refer to independence. I wonder whether page 2 will go back to what Nicola Sturgeon referred to as the focal point of her premiership: education. Perhaps we could have the OECD’s review of the curriculum for excellence before the May elections, rather than after, so that the people of Scotland can see the Scottish National party’s record on education since it took over in 2007.
Tommy Sheppard
I am more than happy for the record of the Scottish Government to be judged by the people on 6 May as well; independence and the referendum is not the only thing we shall be voting on. This SNP Government have been in power for 14 years, and what they do seems to go down rather well with the people of Scotland; I very much look forward to their judgment on that question on 6 May.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman’s party is seeking a new mandate on 6 May. If it does not get the majority it is seeking, will he therefore rule out the SNP trying again to seek a divisive second referendum?
Tommy Sheppard
Everything we do is subject to the will of an endorsement by the people of Scotland; so, obviously, if they do not want to take a particular course of action that we are recommending, that will not happen. If the Conservatives win on 6 May, I accept that there will not be a referendum. I hope they will accept that if we win, there will be, and that it will be legitimate for that to happen.
Tommy Sheppard
If the hon. Member does not mind, I am going to make some progress.
We need to consider what this Chamber’s response would be to that likely outcome. I do not take anything for granted. The campaign has not started; not a single vote has been cast, and I do not take anyone’s vote for granted. We will be arguing for this right until 10 o’clock on polling day. But I think people will want to know what the reaction of this Parliament here in Westminster would be if they were to take a decision saying that they wanted to have that choice again. That is why we need to be very careful about the language that is used by different opponents in this campaign. The way in which it is described will, in itself, condition how people vote on 6 May.
The only legitimate, proper and democratic response would be to say, “We disagree with the decision you’ve taken, but we respect your right to take it, and the British Government will therefore co-operate with the Scottish Government in trying to deliver on the wishes of the people freely and democratically expressed at the ballot box.” That is the reaction that I would hope to see. There are only two other possible responses. The first would be to say, “That process of election is not a sufficient democratic event to allow the choice of the people to be gauged, and therefore we won’t accept it”, in which case, those making that argument have to say by which mechanism people can resolve to go forward in this matter. The second other possible response would be, “Well, it doesn’t matter what the result was, because we do not respect that it is a decision for you to make.” That would be rejecting the claim of right, it would be rejecting the right of people in Scotland to make a choice, and it would take us into uncharted territory, because it would move the United Kingdom from being a multinational state built on the co-operation and consent of the people who live in its component parts, to being a state based on coercion of people throughout its borders to comply with things even if they disagree with them. That would be a completely different territory.
Tommy Sheppard
I am going to make this the last intervention, because I am going to have to get on.
Paul Holmes
I am quite surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not mentioned independence polls, because he used to like to do that—especially when today’s shows that 57% of people would vote against separation. Will he elaborate on what he attributes the Scottish people’s change of mind to?
Tommy Sheppard
I did not mention polls because I would have thought it is too obvious, is it not? We had 22 polls in a row that showed majority support for independence, so I think—[Interruption.] Well, the poll that matters is the one that takes place on 6 May. I think all of us can agree on that.
In moving on, I want to deal with some of the themes that will come up in this campaign. This is where I will rejoin some of the comments and questions that were made in earlier interventions. First, let me deal with this question—this mantra—of “once in a generation”. The Prime Minister has repeated it ad nauseam over the last 12 months. Sometimes, in some of the iterations in which he speaks, we would think that those words were on the ballot paper on 18 September 2014.
I accept that the phrase “once in a generation” was part of the debate, but let us at least be honest with each other about the context in which it was said. It was said, invariably, by those who were proposing a yes vote for independence as a caution to their supporters that they might not get another chance. It was not made as a promise or a qualification to those who opposed independence that it would go away forever.
We have dealt with who should decide whether there is another referendum, but the truth—and I fully accept it—is that, had the result on 18 September 2014 been decisive and had circumstances not changed, that might well have been the end of it, but things did change, opinion did change, and it is for the people of Scotland now to make this determination.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Tommy Sheppard
I am sorry; I think I have to move on. I am not sure—[Interruption.] Am I okay taking some more interventions, Mr Speaker?
Christian Matheson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he took his time deciding, but nevertheless. It is all well and good his trying to explain away this phrase “once in a generation”, but here is the point: it was not us who said it; it was not even the Tories who said it; it was the SNP who said it.
Tommy Sheppard
I hope the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of listening to what I say. I made plain the context in which that was said. It was said as a warning to those who supported independence, not as a promise to those who did not. But it is a moot question, because it is not for the Prime Minister or the First Minister or me or the hon. Gentleman to decide this question; it is for the people of Scotland to make the determination whether there should be another referendum, and to do that through the democratic mechanism of electing a Parliament on a manifesto. That is the process with which we are engaged.
I have already heard the word “separatist” raised in interventions, so I also want to deal with that. Much of what we hear in the coming months will be about the long arms of the Union and how we must not turn our back. This word “separatist” is used as a dysphemism to suggest that people like me are somehow insular or self-serving, want to turn our backs on the people of England, are not interested in co-operation, and are not interested in working together across Britain. It is a lie. It is simply a lie. Nothing could be further from the truth. Getting independence for Scotland is about Scotland having the political capacity to engage with others. It will be the means not of the separation of the Scottish people, but of their involvement across this island, across this continent and across the world.
Let me turn, in my final few moments, to the substance of the amendment, because the amendment is quite interesting, is it not? I talked earlier about there appearing to be a consensus around the idea of the claim of right, so a better amendment might have been to leave the existing text, which was drafted in an attempt not to divide the House, and then insert the words “However, we believe that now is not the time,” or whatever. It does not do that. Instead, it deletes all of it, including the assertion of the claim or right. I invite the Conservatives in this debate to make it clear whether or not they still believe that in the final resolve it should be for the people of Scotland to determine their own constitutional future. [Interruption.] I will not take an intervention, because other hon. Members will be speaking very shortly.
The whole premise of the amendment is to say that it is impossible to consider these matters now because of the pandemic we are all facing, because of the misery and concern that that has caused, and because it would be a distraction. Well, let us be entirely clear about this: no one—I mean no one—is suggesting that we have a referendum campaign during the pandemic. We will have to have it—[Interruption.] I tell you now, no one is suggesting that. We will have to have that put behind us and be moving into a recovery phase before that can happen.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
I am very interested by what the hon. Gentleman says, because his leader, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), has said that an independence referendum could be held this year. The Scottish National party has put aside £600,000 of party funds to fight a referendum campaign this year. Is it wrong, or is the hon. Gentleman wrong?
Tommy Sheppard
If it is possible to have it later this year because the pandemic is over and we have moved beyond it, then I would welcome that. I do not speculate on whether it is the end of this year or the beginning of next year. The principle I am advocating is that we will not be launching or fighting a referendum campaign while the pandemic is still extant and while we have the social restrictions on people that are mandated by the public health emergency. That is a fact. I tell you this, if for no other reason than I do not want to ask people in Scotland about their future through the medium of a computer screen. I want people to be engaged in this debate as friends and as strangers in workplaces, in pubs, in parks. I want them talking about this, energised in the way that they were in 2014, and that is not possible by having some sort of mega-Zoom meeting to try to conduct this debate. So yes, we will be having a referendum campaign once we have dealt with the pandemic and are moving into the recovery phase.
Here is the final point. As we go into the recovery phase—everyone should understand this—far from the debate about a referendum or independence being a diversion from dealing with the pandemic and recovering from it, the process by which we are governed and the type of country we build and develop post covid are intimately linked. They are two sides of the same coin. If we want to see in Scotland a sustainable, green resilient economy that delivers for the communities of Scotland, then we will need the powers and capacity of independence to be able to marshal and direct the country’s capital to that end. If we want to have a better society with a system of obligation and reward that is rooted in human decency, and to see the eradication of poverty in Scotland, then the agency that comes with independence will be critical in delivering that end. If we want to see Scotland play its full role in the world and take a seat at the top table of nations where we can argue enlightened opinions, whether on how we treat refugees in the world or how we eradicate nuclear weapons from our shores, then that will require the political capacity of independence.
Tommy Sheppard
Sorry, I am finishing.
These things are intimately linked. It is not a matter of whether we postpone a discussion on whether to have an independence referendum until we get to a recovery phase. We know the mood music from the UK Government: the Chancellor does not have a detailed plan yet, but we already know that he thinks those who should pay for covid are the public services of the United Kingdom and the people who work in them, and we are anticipating another austerity programme coming in the autumn. The people of Scotland do not have to follow that lead; they have the opportunity on 6 May to vote for the right to choose a better future, and after this long, tragic, miserable year of dealing with covid-19, I think that provides hope on the horizon that people will respond to and vote for, and this House will need to get used to the idea.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Duguid) [V]
I beg to move amendment (b), to leave out from “House” to end and add
“believes the priority of the Scottish people is to recover from the effects of the covid-19 pandemic, and that it would be irresponsible to hold a referendum at this time.”.
I am grateful to be able to speak in this Opposition day debate. My ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), will be closing the debate for the Government and I look forward to hearing his response to the many Back-Bench contributions today. I am pleased to be able to respond to this motion, as it is important to set out why the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) and his party’s focus on divisive debates about separation is irresponsible. We are currently recovering from the worst public health crisis in a century and the deepest recession in our history, and the people of Scotland voted decisively in 2014 to remain part of the United Kingdom. That is the context of this debate.
The people of our United Kingdom want and expect us to focus on fighting covid-19. They rightly expect us to focus on protecting jobs with furlough payments, ensuring our children catch up on their missed education, and finding jobs for our young people. They expect us to focus on building back better and building back greener. The people of Scotland rightly expect their two Governments to work together to deliver these priorities. Yet in the middle of this, the Scottish National party has tabled this motion for an Opposition day debate, not to discuss what more we can do to work constructively together and drive our recovery from covid-19, but instead to promote separation and the pursuit of another divisive and damaging referendum on independence.
The motion does not focus on anything practical or suggest solutions to the real challenges facing people at the moment. It does not propose ideas for how we can work together to deliver better outcomes for all citizens and businesses across Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, but we have already seen that, with the UK pulling together, we can progress quickly on the road to recovery. For example, in our vaccine programme, which is our path out of lockdown and to more normal times and lives, we have vaccines pioneered in the UK, trialled in the UK and made across the UK, including in Scotland, to protect the people of the UK and the world. In this team effort, the UK Government have bought the vaccines and are making sure every part of the UK gets its fair share, and the British armed forces are helping to establish new vaccine centres right across Scotland and to vaccinate people. As a result of our collaboration around 2 million people have already been vaccinated in Scotland.
We are collaborating on testing, too. We are providing sites across Scotland, including seven drive-through testing centres, 33 walk-in centres, over 20 mobile testing units, and the Lighthouse laboratory in Glasgow. Overall, the United Kingdom Government have provided around 60% of all tests in Scotland and, alongside that, the UK Government continue to drive forward our ambitious programme for economic growth.
The Chancellor’s Budget earlier this month demonstrated the Government’s commitment to operating on a truly UK-wide basis, from extending the furlough and self-employment schemes to the levelling-up fund, benefiting citizens and businesses right across the country. We are boosting funding for all communities and all parts of the UK, with a £200 million fund to invest in local areas ahead of launching the UK shared prosperity fund in 2022. This fund will help to level up and create opportunities across the UK in places most in need, such as former industrial areas, deprived towns, and rural and coastal communities, as well as help people who face labour market barriers.
Our ability to do this is underpinned by the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, passed in this place at the end of last year. The Act guarantees that UK companies can trade unhindered in every part of the UK, protecting jobs and livelihoods across the country. The financial assistance power taken through the Act covers infrastructure, economic development, culture and sport, and will support educational and training activities and exchanges both within the UK and internationally. As well as allowing the UK Government to deliver the UK shared prosperity fund, the power will also be used to deliver the new Turing scheme for students across the UK to study and work not just in Europe, but around the world.
There are numerous examples of where our interconnectedness, shared bonds and the value of all parts of the UK working together are clearly evident. The Union connectivity review, for example, is looking at how we better connect the different parts of the UK to boost our economy. We will be bringing at least one freeport to Scotland, and that is on top of the £1.5 billion that we are currently investing in city and region growth deals all across Scotland, in every region.
Just yesterday, the integrated review was published. This sets out the Prime Minister’s vision for the UK in 2030: a stronger, more secure, prosperous and resilient United Kingdom; a problem-solving and burden-sharing nation with a global perspective. Scottish capabilities in defence, space, cyber, maritime industries and many others contribute immensely to the security of our shared nation.
Furthermore, the Prime Minister recently set out his ambitious 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution —an innovative and ambitious programme of job creation that will support levelling up and up to 250,000 jobs. The plan will mobilise £12 billion of UK Government investment across green energy, nature and innovation technologies across the country in areas such as carbon capture, utilisation and storage, hydrogen and offshore wind. I personally expect Scotland to benefit hugely from this, becoming a global centre of excellence for energy transition.
Across the whole United Kingdom, there is far more that unites than divides us, so we should be here today using the time constructively to debate how we can best lead the recovery of our economy and our communities. We should be talking about building up, not breaking up our country. People across the United Kingdom want to see us working in partnership to tackle the pandemic and drive the recovery that we all need. That remains the top priority of the United Kingdom Government. It should be the SNP’s and the Scottish Government’s top priority, too.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
A very happy St Patrick’s Day to you and everyone in the House, Mr Speaker.
I am sure that you will have been as astonished as I was, Mr Speaker, to hear that the SNP was using one of its irregular Opposition day debates to talk about independence. Indeed, even the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) said that this was a very rare debate for the SNP. You could have knocked me over with a feather, Mr Speaker, and that is no mean task with my extra 10 lockdown kilos. It is not as though there is not anything for us to debate today. You would not think that we were in the worst health and economic crisis since world war two.
Why does the SNP want to turn the Scottish election in May into a referendum on whether or not we have another referendum? Because it cannot defend its atrocious record in government for the last 14 years. SNP Members have no defence at all and nothing to offer. In 25 minutes of opening speech, there was not one positive policy about how to deal with the problems in Scotland. We have had the sheer arrogance of the SNP making assumptions about the election result without a single cross being put in a single ballot box anywhere in Scotland. However, we no longer hear the cry of “22 polls in a row in favour of separation” when it is now four in a row in favour of staying part of the United Kingdom, the one today being 57% to 43%. They are being found out.
We could have been debating all sorts of major issues today. We could have debated our democratic institutions in Scotland, whether the Scottish Government legislative settlement needs to be improved, and telling MSPs to properly hold the Scottish Government to account. The Minister made those points yesterday.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The poll today shows that only 46% of the Scottish electorate support independence. A few months ago, it was 58%, so it is down 12%. I say very gently to my brothers and sisters around me, my Gaelic friends: the poll that really matters is the last one. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the reason this has happened is in part due the covid vaccine roll-out? To everyone, it has expressed across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that together, we are better. Does he agree?
Ian Murray
I am sorry that I did not quite hear the hon. Gentleman—the intervention king—so I apologise, but he is right. I think the reason why the polls have moved is that the SNP has arrogantly assumed that the Scottish people want independence, so people have started to ask the big questions, to which no answers have been forthcoming. People realise, with the vaccine roll-out and the covid support, that we are much better and much stronger as a nation working with our partners and friends as part of the family of four nations of the UK.
Jacob Young
The Member from Edinburgh said that the independence referendum will be on page 1 of the SNP’s manifesto and that “no independence referendum” will be on page 1 of the Conservative manifesto. What is Labour’s position on a referendum and on what page will it be in its manifesto?
Ian Murray
It will not be in our manifesto because our manifesto will be a covid recovery plan for the nation.
Mr Speaker
Order. We are not here to debate what referendums might be in parties’ manifestos. Otherwise, we will be here a long time, and which election would we start with?
Ian Murray
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Just for the record, there are Members for Edinburgh East and for Edinburgh South. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East does not represent the whole city, despite the fact that the SNP thinks that it represents the whole of Scotland.
Let me go back to what we could be debating today. We could have debated the dreadful picture that everyone will have seen on social media from George Square in Glasgow last month, where 220 people were queuing up in sub-zero temperatures in the snow to get food from the soup kitchen. A photo says a thousand words, and those words were that both the UK and Scottish Governments are failing the people of Scotland who need their Governments the most. But, no, we are not debating that.
We could have debated universal credit and the £20 uplift becoming permanent, extending it to legacy benefits, removing the rape clause and helping those most in need.
Ian Murray
I will come back to the hon. Gentleman in a second.
We could have debated the First Minister’s so-called top priority: education. But the SNP cannot defend the widening educational attainment gap, thousands fewer teachers, a lower spend per pupil than in 2007, Scotland plummeting down the international rankings, or Scotland’s education system being behind England for the first time ever—behind Tory England for the first time ever. They will not even publish the OECD report into Scottish education before the election—I wonder why. We could have debated education and our children’s future, but no.
We could have debated why, even before covid, the SNP Scottish Government had not met their own legal NHS waiting times targets since 2012. They have broken their own law 360,000 times in the process, but no.
How about international issues? We could have debated Myanmar and the atrocities in the coup, Yemen and the worst humanitarian disaster the world has ever seen, or Scotland’s wonderful partnership with Malawi, but no.
We could have debated how Scottish businesses recover from covid and how we can support those sectors in hospitality, tourism and culture that will take longer to recover and have been hardest hit. What about the 3 million excluded from any Government support? We could have debated that, but no.
We could have debated how Scottish taxpayers are on the hook for over half a billion pounds to fund a 25-year guarantee for a failing business that owned an aluminium smelter and a hydropower plant in Scotland, but no.
We could have debated last month’s Audit Scotland report, which says that billions of pounds of covid support funds are unspent by the Scottish Government and audited what they are spending them on, but no.
We could have been having a debate about COP26 and climate change, but no.
We could have celebrated the success of the vaccine roll-out—all the nations of the UK working together with our wonderful science and research and development sectors—but no.
We could have even debated how the Tories are a bigger threat to the Union than any nationalist. They got us into this mess by playing fast and loose with the UK constitution in the first place, bringing us Brexit, English votes for English laws, cronyism, wasting £37 billion on Test and Trace. We could have debated how they have nothing to offer Scotland but waving their own flag, but no.
We could even have debated how to eradicate child poverty, but no. The SNP uses its precious parliamentary time to debate another referendum—quelle surprise. Surely if SNP Members want to turn May’s election into a referendum on having another referendum, they could at least put their cards on the table and be straight with the Scottish people. Even the hon. Member for Edinburgh East said on several occasions during his speech, “Let us be honest with each other,” so let us make this a great opportunity for them to use their speeches to tell us what their separation proposition means. Let us be honest with each other.
On EU accession, how, when, why? How will they meet the criteria? On borders, will this be determined by the trade and co-operation agreement that has just been signed between the UK and the EU? The Health Secretary said on “Question Time” two weeks ago that it would not.
Tommy Sheppard
All these questions will be discussed and decided upon if and when we get to a referendum campaign and a referendum vote. What is at stake on 6 May is who should make the decision on whether that process happens—whether people in Scotland have a right to even choose to make that consideration. That is a different matter. What is the hon. Gentleman’s view on that?
Ian Murray
When I pose the challenge to the hon. Gentleman, “Let’s be honest with each other” the answer comes back, “No”. What is at stake at the elections on 6 May is how Scotland recovers from the worst health and economic crisis since the second world war. To plunge the country into another divisive independence referendum debate, while people are more worried about their lives, their livelihoods and the health of their friends and their family, is absolutely deplorable.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a characteristically excellent speech. What he says about the timing of the referendum is something that polling is clear about. While the polling has moved up and down on the subject of whether there should be independence, it is absolutely clear that even the majority of those who are in favour of independence do not think that we should have a referendum right now. What are those people supposed to do when they go to vote in May? If they vote for the Scottish National party, they will be seen as having endorsed a referendum that they themselves do not think should happen right now.
Ian Murray
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head because the priorities of the Scottish people are health, education, covid recovery, the economy, jobs and livelihoods. That is what is important to the Scottish people and poll after poll after poll shows that.
Let us be honest with each other. On the oil price, $114 a barrel was underpinning the entire Scottish economy; it has been less than half of that since the last referendum. On deficits and debt, how will they be dealt with? On pensions, SNP candidates in constituencies up and down Scotland are delivering leaflets promising pensioners that they will double the state pension. Let us be honest with each other. And how would the SNP work with the rest of the UK with regards to the EU?
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
For a start, if we are going to be honest, it is quite clear that, due to the covid restrictions, we do not have people out delivering leaflets right now. If we are talking about honesty, will the hon. Gentleman answer this question: if the voters vote for parties that have a referendum in their manifesto, should that referendum happen to reflect the will of the Scottish people? Will he give us an honest answer?
Ian Murray
I will be honest with the hon. Gentleman. The leaflet was delivered in Dumbarton and was posted on social media by the person who delivered it, so that is being honest with each other. Let me just say to him that I am very much in the same place as Sir John Curtice —we cannot extrapolate a single issue from a general election. It is disingenuous to suggest that we should turn this major election, the most important I think in Scotland’s devolution history, into whether or not we should have a referendum on another referendum.
Ian Murray
Let me make a little progress.
Let me go to the biggest issue of all—currency. We have heard the same old arguments from the SNP time and again, so perhaps they can tell us something new. Let us be honest with each other. What on earth would the people be voting for? Let us take this issue of currency. If any SNP Members want to intervene on me and tell me what the answer is, I will give them the Floor for as long as they like.
The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), the Leader of the SNP in this House, promotes sterlingisation. He says that people should not worry—we will keep using the pound until such time as six tests are met, however long that would be. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) tells us that they will only keep the pound for a few months. The SNP’s Deputy Leader, Keith Brown, says that they will keep the pound for less than five years. Andrew Wilson, the head of the SNP’s Growth Commission and a former SNP Finance Minister, says that it could be decade before we give up the pound. Does any SNP Member want to tell us exactly how long we will keep the pound? Is it a few months? Is it five years? Is it 10 years? Is it indefinitely? Will we keep it at all? Let us just be honest with each other if the SNP wants to turn this debate into a referendum on whether or not we have a referendum.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent case on the lack of clarity from the Scottish National party. But what he needs to be clear on to the Scottish people when he goes to the polls on 6 May is whether his party backs a referendum or not. We have been honest. SNP Members have been honest about what they want. Will he now be honest and say what his position is?
Ian Murray
The answer to the question is no.
On interest rates—[Interruption.] The Conservatives do this all the time. They deliberately misinterpret the Scottish Labour party’s policy in order to feather their own electoral nest. That is why they are putting the Union at risk and why they are a bigger threat to the UK than any nationalist.
Let me turn to the interest rate question. For as long as we do not have our own currency, the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who is in the Chamber, thinks that we will still have a monetary and interest rate policy, but his own SNP Minister for Energy, Paul Wheelhouse MSP, said that, without a central bank or lender of last resort, we would have to take whatever interest rates were set. Can any SNP Member intervene and tell us who is right—the hon. Member for Glasgow East or the Scottish Government Minister?
That leads us to exchange rates. Let us try another one. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber said that
“when we do have our own currency it has to be pegged against the pound sterling”,
but the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) suggests that will not be the case because we would need to meet the exchange rate mechanism rules to enter the EU. Again, what is it? Is it that we would have to take our own exchange rate mechanism to qualify for the EU, or would we be pegged to sterling? Maybe the answer is none of the above. Could it be the euro, as the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) said, or maybe Bitcoin, as the former SNP Member for East Lothian, George Kerevan, said—or, worse yet, our flexible friend? Will we all use our credit cards as if we were on holiday, as the SNP MSP Emma Harper suggested in a TV debate, when she said that we did not need a currency at all because we all used plastic anyway?
The position of SNP parliamentarians on these matters would be hilarious, were it not so serious. They want to take us out of the UK, regardless of the economic and social chaos that this would cause. This is about people’s jobs, mortgages and livelihoods. It is about our communities.
If SNP Members insist on focusing on separation instead of on how we get people back to work, how we lift families and children out of poverty, how we restart and properly value our NHS and how we lead a national effort to recover from this pandemic, they should at least be straight with the Scottish people about how separation will affect their jobs, livelihoods, health, education and opportunities for the future. They refuse to put forward the details of the separation proposition because the answers to these big questions are either unpalatable to the public or they actually do not know the answers.
Ian Murray
I will carry on, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because I have taken longer than I expected to.
Let us go back to the question that was debated earlier: when would that referendum be held? The hon. Member for Edinburgh East said—let us check Hansard—that no one is saying it would be this year—no one except the First Minister when she set out an 11-point plan to potentially deliver even an illegal referendum this year.
Ian Murray
I will when I have finished this point.
Mike Russell, the SNP Constitutional Minister and President of the SNP, said before Christmas, and the SNP leader in this place, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, said just a few weeks ago, that the referendum could happen this year. Does anyone honestly believe, whether they are yes or no, that it would be in Scotland’s interests to have a referendum on separation instead of a laser-like focus on covid recovery? But that is SNP Members’ only priority. If it were not their priority, they would not put it on the ballot paper. If it were not their priority, they would not be using the valuable four days until the Scottish Parliament goes into recess for the election to bring forward another referendum Bill. The First Minister says she wants to be judged on her covid record, so which one is it? While most Scots are worried about their jobs and livelihoods, about their health and that of their family and friends, about the future for their children’s education, and about how the NHS will catch up with cancer and other treatments that have been paused during covid, the SNP goes on about the constitution.
We cannot rely on the UK Government to deliver a recovery that works for everyone. We have seen that already. They just want business as usual, looking after their neighbours and friends rather than the country. They want to defend a broken status quo, rather than trying to fix it for the future. That is why the Scottish election must be about what the new Scottish Labour leader, Anas Sarwar, is proposing: delivering a national recovery plan that at its heart is about creating jobs, catching up on education and rebuilding our NHS, so that we never again have to choose between treating a virus and treating cancer. That is what we will be putting forward: a jobs and economic recovery plan; an NHS recovery plan; an education recovery plan; a climate recovery plan; and a communities recovery plan. These are the priorities of the Scottish people, far and above all else.
Ian Murray
I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, as I have mentioned him during my speech.
David Linden
I sit on the Back Benches, watch the hon. Gentleman, the lonely Scottish Labour MP at Westminster, and find myself reflecting every now and again about his once great party. I was party campaigning in a Labour seat in 2001, when it took 65% of the vote. Has he ever reflected on why his party is represented as it is at Westminster, given its intransigent policy against independence and against Scotland having the right to choose?
Ian Murray
It is called having principles. The hon. Gentleman ought to try it sometime. We are against independence because it would be bad for the Scottish people, and that is why SNP Members have to answer these questions. They cannot just decide that they are going to move their principles and damage the Scottish economy, Scottish society and Scottish culture on the basis of what the hon. Gentleman has just said. Anas Sarwar will get Scottish Labour back on track with his optimism and his positivity.
As we come out of this pandemic, we must focus on solutions that ensure that Scotland comes back a better, stronger and fairer nation than the one that went into lockdown last year. The SNP wants to go back to the same old divisive discussions, while Labour in Scotland is looking to the future, not separation and not defending the broken status quo. In just a few short weeks, Anas Sarwar, together with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), has shown that we can be a credible alternative. Scots do not have to choose between the divisive politics of the SNP—[Interruption.]—the divisive, arrogant politics of the SNP that I hear behind me and the Scottish Tories’ status quo.
Not one vote has been cast yet. Now more than ever, Scotland needs its powerful Parliament to deliver a strong NHS, take action on the jobs crisis, deliver a national care service and treat poverty as the health and economic emergency that it is. Scotland needs a Government who do not just say that education is a priority but really show our children and young people that we are committed to giving them the future they deserve.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The House will be aware that a great many people wish to take part in this important debate. Members will be accustomed to a time limit of three minutes, but in this very important debate, we will begin with a time limit of four minutes.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who was as witty and articulate as ever, but I still have no idea where Anas Sarwar and the Scottish Labour party stand on having another independence referendum.
I was very proud to be part of the process that led to the Edinburgh agreement, which facilitated the 2014 referendum. At the time, Alex Salmond—who is now heavily criticised by some of the same people who portrayed him as father of the nation on whose word everybody in Scotland could rely—said that that was a gold standard agreement and the basis on which such a referendum could and should be held in order that it be fair, legal and decisive. And yet, from the moment that referendum was held—not in 2016, 2018 or 2019, but from 19 September 2014—the SNP has agitated for another referendum. It did not even wait for the dust to settle on the result, and it completely disrespected the outcome, having said that it would respect it.
In each of the elections we have had since 2014, the SNP has sought to downplay independence. In a television debate before the 2016 Scottish Parliament election, Nicola Sturgeon said that there was no prospect of a referendum. In the 2019 general election, my SNP opponent said, “This isn’t about independence at all. It’s nothing to do with independence. It’s about Brexit; that’s what it’s about,” yet each time, from the moment the polls close, every vote cast is portrayed as a vote for independence.
I welcome the fact that the SNP has registered with the Electoral Commission the slogans “Both votes SNP for indyref2” and “Vote SNP for indyref2”, because people will understand, I hope—and I hope it will be on page 1 of the manifesto in big writing, not hidden away on page 16 as some sub-clause, as the “changing circumstances” caveat was.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I have listened carefully, and I have heard a number of Members say this about every vote cast being a vote for independence. Would the right hon. Gentleman not accept that, in the literature produced and distributed by his party in any given election at any level of government in Scotland, “Vote Conservative to say no to indyref” is doing exactly the same thing—it is suggesting that every vote for the Conservative party is a vote against a referendum?
David Mundell
What we are suggesting as we go into this election under the leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) is that there is an alternative to this obsession with independence. It does not all have to be about independence. Despite what the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) said, Scottish Parliament time has been devoted to an independence referendum. There has been a Bill in the Parliament during the period of covid. There has not been a focus entirely on covid, because the independence issue has always been there.
We hear today that the “once in a generation” claim was only for SNP supporters, to make sure that they got down to the polling station, and it could not be relied on. We hear that Mike Russell’s pronouncements that we will have a referendum by Christmas and those of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) about having a referendum this year cannot be relied on. Well, what cannot be relied on by the people of Scotland is that the SNP will not press ahead with a referendum regardless. We have heard that they are the people who will determine what people in Scotland think. What arrogance—it is not about elections; the SNP will decide what the people of Scotland think, and if it determines that the people of Scotland are in favour of a referendum it is willing to press ahead with one regardless. Several leading members of the SNP have said that, and I look forward to the contribution of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), who is a proponent of this.
I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh South that this election is very important. It is important on 6 May that we get Scotland to focus on coming out of the pandemic with a plan for recovery—none currently exists in Scotland. There is a plan for an independence referendum, but there is no plan for recovery. The only realistic way in which people can achieve that is to use both votes on 6 May for the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party. We want to end division. No referendum—let us rebuild Scotland.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
A happy St Patrick’s Day to you too, Madam Deputy Speaker.
May I begin with this point? It is roughly the same distance from Greater Manchester to London as it is to Edinburgh or Glasgow, yet the travel time is considerably more—almost half as much again—to those great Scottish cities than it is to London. That is indicative of a problem facing the north of England and Scotland: the failure of Governments of different descriptions, but particularly the Conservative-led Government, over the past 10 years to address the needs of every part of this island of ours, its nations and regions. I empathise with the sense of resentment in Scotland about a Government who ignore the needs of many people, because that is exactly how many people in the north of England feel as well.
We have more in common than empathy. There was a time when northern MPs worked hard with Scottish Labour MPs to challenge a Conservative Government and a Labour Government to work together to bring about solutions that both Scotland and the north needed, but we do not see that now. The motive of SNP MPs is to talk up independence at the expense of major issues such as universal credit, job creation, and investment, both in industries and services and in our children’s education and training.
We had those things in common, but we have more in common than that. I grew up in a city region where the influence of Scots was not romantic but real. As a young man, I was at school with people from Scottish families. During my early working life in industry, I met engineers and printers from Scotland. I met people in the teaching profession who had come down from Scotland and worked in our universities as academics. People worked together in different areas. I worked closely with many Scots in our trade union movement, and they made an important and valuable contribution. Their attitude was similar to ours, and in politics my party has always benefited, in Greater Manchester and across the north of Scotland, from many Scots who played a role.
I cannot think of a time when there was not a Scottish Member of Parliament in the region—we now have the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). There have always been Scottish Members of Parliament, including the late Jim Dobbin, who was MP for Heywood and Middleton. That mattered, because they had similar values to us, unlike one home counties-based Conservative —I will not name them—who, many years ago, travelled up to the north and said, “I love coming to the north, Tony. It’s so terribly real up there.” Well, it was very real for me, because I grew up there and have lived most of my life there. The Scots understood that; they were our partners because they shared those values. That matters, because it is why, even now, 60% of Scotland’s trade is with England. That matters enormously because, in the end, taking away the importance of London, the north of England and Scotland trade with each other. If we were to see Scotland in the European Union, that would devastate the trade between Scotland and the north of England; it would be crippling for both sides. That does matter because it is jobs, it is the future, and that matters.
There is an answer. It is to work together essentially for the devolved Britain that I want to see—power, yes, for the Scottish Parliament, but power too for the north of England, the north-west, the north-east, Yorkshire and Humberside. That different constitutional settlement can allow us to work together. It is the real answer to the problems of Scotland and the north-west of England.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Debating time in the House of Commons is a precious commodity. It is an opportunity to raise important matters for our nation—important matters of international concern and, crucially, for the people that we all represent. As one of the political parties in this place, the Scottish National party is in the privileged position of having debating time—time when it decides what to debate and the issues that it wants to promote. I know that my constituents in the Scottish borders will be baffled, given the huge challenges that we are facing in Scotland, that the nationalists have decided to use this debating time to promote their obsession with independence referendums.
Scots are worried about the coronavirus. We are worried about the economy. People are worried about their jobs. Families are worried about their health and the wellbeing of loved ones. And yet here we are, debating the SNP’s obsession—independence and referendums. Scots are rightly asking why the SNP’s priorities are so out of step with those of most people in Scotland.
The SNP has announced that it will hold another independence referendum as early as this year, if it wins a majority in the upcoming elections. At this uncertain time, the only priority I would suggest that we should have is working together to manage the crisis and rebuild our country. Our focus needs to be on defeating the spread of the coronavirus and on the economic recovery plan.
The SNP is trying to distract people today, I believe, with its new independence referendum road map as a shield to hide a catalogue of targets not met, priorities not delivered and promises broken. Time and again we have heard SNP politicians request that their performance be judged on education. The SNP promised to reduce class sizes for primaries 1 to 3, but for 13 years the SNP has failed to deliver on that promise. The recent OECD report slammed the shameful attainment gap that exists between poor and wealthier children, but I am sure it comes as no surprise to Members that the SNP in Edinburgh has refused to publish the latest OECD report until after the elections in May. Under the SNP, Scotland’s science and maths scores have dropped below those of England and Wales, and are at an all-time low since rankings were introduced.
The SNP shows complete contempt for the future prospects of Scotland’s children. In health, too, it has failed. It has failed to deliver on its promises of tackling the chronic shortage of GPs. It has failed on the children’s hospital in Edinburgh which only just opened, four years behind schedule.
David Mundell
Does my hon. Friend share my amazement that, when confronted with any of these issues—the real issues that people face in health and education—the only answer the SNP can put forward is independence, despite having had 14 years to resolve these issues?
John Lamont
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; independence is the SNP’s only answer to everything, yet it has failed to deliver for my constituents and most people in Scotland.
Similarly, the SNP has failed Scotland’s economy, having presided over the lowest rate of job creation in the entirety of the UK over the past decade. The SNP has continuously failed rural Scotland too, whether it be its failure to deliver rural broadband or the lack of engagement with the Union transport connectivity review, which would have been an opportunity to improve transport links. Whether it be the A1, the A75 or extending the Borders Railway, the SNP has simply refused to engage.
And of course we have the Salmond/Sturgeon affair, which is perhaps the ultimate failure—this time with a woman at its heart. Misleading the Scottish Parliament on multiple occasions, withholding legal documents and not fully co-operating with the Scottish Parliament’s inquiry, the First Minister and her deputy have shown a blatant disregard for the people of Scotland they claim to serve. The handling of this affair is symptomatic of the SNP’s failure to deliver for the Scottish people across all areas of public life. With such a corrupt, sleazy and tired Government in Edinburgh, it is little surprise that the SNP has picked its obsession of separation to debate today, rather than defend its colleagues’ record in Government in Holyrood.
David Linden
I guess if this was a drinking game, we would probably be having our stomachs pumped every time the hon. Gentleman mentioned the word “SNP”, but I want to ask him about the fact that he reflects a lot on the SNP talking about independence, although the leaflets I have received from the Scottish Conservatives talk only about independence. He talks about party leaders. Will he be inviting the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) to come and campaign in the upcoming election?
John Lamont
The last time I checked, the SNP is your party name and it is your party ticket. If you are telling us now that you do not want to associate with that, perhaps you should think about changing your party’s name. The last time I checked it is also your party, as we heard from your party spokesman this morning—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I let the hon. Gentleman get away with it at first, but every time he says “your party”, he is referring to me, and I think everybody knows that the party of the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) is not mine.
John Lamont
I am very grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not want to cause you deep offence, possibly, which clearly was not my intention.
I am very clear what my party believes in: Scotland’s place is at the heart of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) clearly does not share my view on that, and he can put that to the electorate in May. The Scottish National party’s priorities, choices and decisions reflect the reality of a party that does not care about Scotland’s children, Scotland’s businesses, our frontline workers and our rural communities, nor is it one that believes it can be held accountable for its actions. The SNP—the Scottish National party—is failing Scotland. The SNP is failing Scots when our focus should be on the pandemic, vaccinations and the economic recovery. Now is not the time for another divisive referendum.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) [V]
I am not here to debate whether we can have a referendum; that will not be decided in this place. Today, I am focused on sharing a positive vision of an independent Scotland.
The ongoing pandemic continues to present us all with completely new challenges, demanding responses that have no precedent. However, the pandemic should not be used as an excuse for the response and actions of this Government towards those seeking sanctuary here in the nations of the UK. Current UK immigration policy and the decisions made by the Government are confusing, complex and callous. That policy is heavily influenced by conditions in the south-east of England and it does not reflect the demands across other countries and regions of this Union.
Successive UK Governments have attempted to fool us all into thinking that a hostile environment for immigrants was a societal necessity. The aggressive approach to immigration and, in particular, asylum cases lacks dignity and respect, and the offer of any form of protection. The crisis caused by the pandemic only magnifies the absurdities of this inhumane approach and illustrates why, for Scotland or our Government to have any real chance to affect such matters positively, there is only one real solution available to us—an independent Scotland.
We can appreciate that there are pressures on the Government to provide accommodation for those awaiting determination of status, but that does not mean that undignified mechanisms of accommodation should be utilised. What is required is the long-term sustainable action of compassion to establish, secure and dignify dispersal options and reasonable waiting times for outcomes. In an independent Scotland, we will establish a small separate asylum agency to deal with status applications. That dedicated agency would be tailored to the needs of both our nation and applicants, and it would avoid and mitigate the barriers and complexities of the callous Home Office system. Employment and housing opportunities would be provided in different regions of Scotland to help people seeking to live in and contribute to Scotland to make an informed choice and ensure integration happened from day one of arrival. That would benefit both any host community and the individual or family.
We will build a system that reflects the outlook of our nation. Migrants have played an important part in shaping Scotland, and have enriched and enhanced our culture throughout the generations. Many modern Scots simply would not be if it were not for migration to our shores. On that note, I wish everybody a very happy St Patrick’s day.
A new and independent Scotland would have an inclusive approach to citizenship and a humane approach to asylum and refuge, one that was sensitive and respectful of the needs of those with a desire to call Scotland home. An independent Scotland would work constructively with other nations, local authorities and support agencies to secure appropriate means of sustainable and integrated residence within local communities.
An independent Scotland would in no circumstance use crammed, unhygienic military barracks as accommodation for those fleeing persecution. In 2018, the Court of Appeal judge Sir Stephen Irwin said in a speech that the UK’s immigration rules were “something of a disgrace”. Three years on, nothing has changed. The UK should be protecting those who have arrived seeking safety from violence or persecution. That it does not is wrong, insensitive and not in our name. There is another way, and an independent Scotland will lead that way.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) [V]
Devolution is about giving as much power to local communities across Britain as possible. From the Northern Ireland Assembly to the Welsh Assembly and to the Mayors of London, the west midlands and Manchester, devolution works best when local communities decide on local democratic representation while comforted by the protection given by the enormous strength of the peoples of the UK acting as one. But something has gone wrong. After 14 long years of government by nationalists, focused exclusively on their narrow separatist agenda and the break-up of Britain, anything that stands in its way and anyone who stands in their way, including what is in the best interests of the people of Scotland, is crushed.
The separatists had a golden opportunity today to highlight the real issues that affect the people of Scotland and the whole UK. Today, they could have talked about the welcome strength of working together in the production and roll-out of the vaccination programme—the biggest health task this country has ever undertaken. Today, they could have talked about the strength of the Scottish people, the English people, the Welsh people and the Northern Irish people pooling their taxes to benefit us all, including those who receive the supportive furlough payments, which is possible only because of the size and strength of Britain.
Today, the separatists could have talked about the new integrated review announced by the Prime Minister only yesterday on how Scotland can best work with countries across the world in trade and commerce. Today, they could have talked about the importance of the defence sector in Scotland, which has built the UK’s largest flagships, which will help to defend and protect fragile democracies around the world. But no, they did not do that. Instead, they bang the tired drum of separatism; “division”, “anger”, “gripe” and “divorce” are the words that best describe the nationalists.
However, I want to look at the performance of the Nats in Holyrood. They promised they would reduce class sizes in primaries 1, 2 and 3 to 18 pupils or fewer, but they have failed to deliver. Scotland’s maths and science scores are at record lows, and its reading score is lower than levels seen in 2000. Overall, Scotland is performing worse than Portugal, the Czech Republic and even Slovenia. Those are not my findings; they are the findings of reputable organisations, including the PISA—programme for international student assessment—results, which show that Scottish education under a Nat Government has gone backwards.
The Nats have dismantled local frontline policing, and crime is on the rise. Police officers felt “abandoned” by the Nats at the height of the coronavirus pandemic. Those are not my words; they are the words of the Scottish Police Federation chair, Calum Steele, who said:
“There is an increasing sense among members that the Government have abandoned the police service in the midst of this crisis.”
The Nats promised to expand testing capacity to 65,000 people per day, but they have only managed to test about half that number on a single occasion. Compare the record of the Nats with the UK-wide vaccination effort —the strength of the peoples of the UK is best seen in the tremendous efforts being made by our hard-working healthcare staff. They have put their shoulders to the wheel and are the ones getting us out of this awful pandemic. It is time that Nicola Sturgeon worked with the UK.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) [V]
I declare my interest as someone of Scottish descent—a reminder, as is the case for many families, of our shared interest in these islands over centuries.
There is, of course, a case that can be made for an independent Scotland, but I profoundly disagree with it, and in a brilliant speech my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) exposed its contradictions and lack of answers. Let us be honest: the SNP has continued to argue for a second referendum ever since it lost the first. I have listened for many years as the SNP told a story about a nation disrespected and denied its rights by this Parliament. I have always found that rather story depressing because it seems to me that it undervalues Scotland but is told to nurture the grievance that all too often appears to be at the heart of the independence cause.
I have often wondered whether a visitor from afar who knew nothing of the condition of our country might conclude that the people of Scotland were labouring under the terrible yoke of an English-dominated Parliament, but we all know that that is not the case. Indeed, I look at the success of devolution and the extensive powers, some of them barely used, as well as additional funding, that devolution has brought to the people of Scotland—some yoke, some grievance. As a Leeds MP, I dearly wish to have some of those things for the people I represent.
I wish to see the benefits of this shared Union: the security that it gives us all, from whichever part of the United Kingdom we come, and the power of a single currency backed by the Treasury. In recent months, we have seen how, by working together through our NHS, we have been able to vaccinate people in all parts of our Union to protect them. I ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), why does it require separation for Scotland to engage with the rest of the United Kingdom?
This may be uncomfortable for some to hear, but I am struck by the similarities in the arguments put by those who argued for Brexit and by those who argue for Scottish independence. Both are based on the charge that one is somehow done down by the other. Both argue that sovereignty should outweigh economic self-interest. Given the problems we see on the border between the UK and the EU, how could it possibly be in the economic interest of Scotland—or, indeed, of England—to establish that same customs and single market border from the Solway firth to just north of Berwick-upon-Tweed?
Both arguments create bitter division. Opinion in Scotland is very divided on independence; be wary of the untold consequences of small margins and do not make assumptions. Opinion polls move, but there is only one true indicator of the settled will of the Scottish people, and that is the outcome of the 2014 referendum. I do not decry anyone’s right to continue to argue their cause in the face of that settled will, but I do question the wisdom of doing so, especially now. Together, we face unprecedented challenges—a pandemic, an economic crisis, the threat of dangerous climate change—but I believe that we can and will best respond to them not through separation, but as one country, one Union, one United Kingdom.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I can attest to the Scottish descent of the right hon. Gentleman, as his grandmother and I went to the same school, albeit not at the same time. [Laughter.]
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
As we have heard from a number of speakers today, SNP politicians in this House are regular contributors in this Chamber and in our Committees, but only a couple of times a year do they get to set the title of the debate, to lead the narrative and to say where the focus should be in this Chamber. And today, yet again, they focus on independence—not on health in Scotland, not on education, not on our recovery or rebuilding after this pandemic, but on independence. In 25 minutes from the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), we did not hear anything positive about Scotland’s future. We did not hear how the SNP planned to rebuild after the pandemic, or how we can get our country back up and running again after 12 months of such great sacrifices from people across the country; no, we heard about separation and independence. It is unforgivable for SNP Members to yet again prioritise their own party’s priorities rather than Scotland’s.
I always like to look at what individuals have said so far in the debate, so I asked my office to check what the hon. Member for Edinburgh East said about a referendum in the next year. He said:
“I do not speculate on whether it is the end of this year or the beginning of next year.”
The hon. Gentleman is saying to the people of Scotland that his view from the SNP Benches here is that we could have a referendum in December or January, but certainly within the next 12 months the SNP’s plan is to take our country through that disruptive referendum process all over again. The plan is not to rebuild Scotland, focus on the jobs that have been lost and on getting our health service back up and running again, or on protecting people and livelihoods. His focus—the SNP’s focus—in the next year is more division and another referendum.
Tommy Sheppard
I feel the need to intervene, because a number of colleagues appear to be having some difficulty understanding what we mean when we say we do not want to have a referendum campaign until after the pandemic is finished. That is quite simple, is it not? The problem is that we do not know when the pandemic will end. We hope that it will end soon; and as soon as it ends, we will move on to having a referendum campaign. I hope that people can acknowledge that. I do not know exactly what the date will be, because it is contingent on what happens with covid-19. None of us knows that. But as soon as the pandemic is out of the way, then we move on. Of course, I hope the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the whole point of independence is not to have it for its own sake, but to improve in all the areas that he is talking about.
Douglas Ross
It is incredible that the SNP position is somehow that this pandemic will be over with a flick of a switch and lives will not continue to be destroyed because of what we have been through for the past 12 months. People are still losing their lives in—[Interruption.] Don’t do that, Mr Sheppard. That is unacceptable in a debate when we are speaking about people losing their lives and losing their jobs. You are animated in such a way that you do not care about that. Well, I care about Scotland and Scotland’s recovery. The reckless approach from the SNP—to have another referendum within the next year—shows everyone in Scotland where your priorities are, and they do not lie with the people of Scotland.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh East also said that “once in a generation” was a “tagline” and went on to say—I paraphrase slightly—that it was used to dupe pro-independence supporters to vote for his party. But it is written in the White Paper, the foreword of which was signed by the former leader of the SNP. Therefore, what else in the White Paper was just used to dupe people? I think pretty much everything. We have now heard from the SNP Benches that their prospectus for an independent Scotland was based on putting information in there to dupe people into voting that way.
I also want to comment on a statement made from the Labour Front Bench. I think this may be the first time that we have heard this from the official Opposition in this House and it is very welcome; Labour’s shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), praised the vaccine roll-out and covid support. It is encouraging to hear the Labour party finally recognising that the UK Conservative Government’s vaccine programme, furlough support, self-employed income support, and support for businesses and jobs up and down Scotland has been such a roaring success north of the border and in every other part of the United Kingdom. I am extremely encouraged to hear that.
We still have to hear from the SNP’s shadow Leader of the House today, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), from its temporary Chief Whip, the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), and from other SNP Members, but we have not yet heard anything about a currency for an independent Scotland, borders in an independent Scotland or what independence would mean for our armed forces in Scotland. I again invite SNP Members to tell us the SNP’s plan in an independent Scotland for our currency, for our armed forces and for our border—anything? Nothing. SNP Members wanted this debate in order to speak about independence, but when we ask them about independence, they are silent. That is not an approach to take to the people of Scotland.
We can stop the SNP. We can halt its plans for another divisive independence referendum and we can get the Scottish Parliament 100% laser focused on our recovery from this pandemic. People can do that by using both their votes for the Scottish Conservatives in May’s election so that we can end the division over another referendum, focus on our recovery, and rebuild Scotland.
John Lamont
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. After his intervention, the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) made a very unfortunate hand gesture at my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) that I believe was disrespectful both to my hon. Friend and perhaps to other people watching this debate outside of this place. I seek your guidance as to whether that type of behaviour is acceptable in this place.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I caught that something had occurred, but I could not see what the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) did with his hand. If he did make a gesture that is unbecoming of an hon. Member of this place, I am sure he will apologise.
Tommy Sheppard
I certainly had no intention to make any gesture that would cause offence. I do not know why the offence has been taken. I was trying to indicate that the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) had not given due consideration to what I had said. I am not sure exactly what gesture is meant. I was pointing at my head and saying, “Think about it.” [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Let us not prolong this. I take it that the hon. Gentleman will apologise if he inadvertently caused any offence by a gesture that should not have taken place in this place. It would be helpful if he would just nod to me.
Tommy Sheppard
I do apologise if any offence was taken; it was not intended.
Madam Deputy Speaker
That is sufficient. It is essential that we keep good order and good humour in these debates, where of course there is massive disagreement about policy and ideas but there is always courtesy between hon. Members. I am grateful to all hon. Gentlemen, who are now behaving honourably.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) [V]
As others have mentioned, today is St Patrick’s Day. It is also a century on from when the United Kingdom, in its first iteration as the United Kingdom and Ireland, ended when the Irish Free State was established. Now the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland stand on the brink as Scotland seeks its independence to make its way in the world and to end the dystopian fantasy of post-Brexit Britain and its pursuit of a new age of empire.
What Charles Stewart Parnell said of Ireland applies to Scotland:
“No man has a right to fix the boundary of the march of a nation; no man has a right to say to his country—thus far shalt thou go and no further.”
Yet that is what Scotland is being told, despite support for independence being ever greater and despite Scotland’s democratically elected representatives demanding the right to hold a referendum. Instead, we are told that it is no to indyref2, and that now and forevermore it will remain that way unless and until it is set by the British on their conditions. That is simply unacceptable. Scotland cannot be subject to a British, or even Boris, veto. It is neither his nor their right or prerogative—it is the democratic right of the Scottish people.
That is why we have to consider what options are taken. Section 30 has been rejected by the Prime Minister. A consultative referendum is to be boycotted by the Opposition parties. It is for that reason that more and more people in Scotland see the need to make the Holyrood poll a plebiscite election. It cannot be, or will not be, boycotted because of its nature. The vote on the list can be definitive for independence and parties are signing up for that. It is simply not acceptable that Northern Ireland is entitled to a referendum and the Irish Free State was established on a referendum, yet Scotland is denied another referendum despite carrying out its actions democratically and without violence.
As Brexit Britain sails off into oblivion, it is for Scotland to gain its independence. There is a better way, and the people of Scotland are beginning to recognise that the tenor and tone of the debate has changed. In 2014, and occasionally in some of the contributions here, we have heard, “Please don’t go, Scotland, we love you.” Equally, it is becoming clearer and clearer that it is not a desire to retain Scotland for Scotland’s interests, but a desire to retain Scotland for the interests of those who are the British establishment. That was made quite clear by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, who wrote recently of Scottish independence that:
“The rest of the world would instantly see that we were no longer a front-rank power, or even in the second row.”
So the whole position put forward by the British Government is not the advancement of the interests of the Scottish people; it is the preservation of the interests of Britain as it stands and of those who are currently very wealthy, as the chumocracy looks after its friends and others.
It is for that reason that the people of Scotland recognise there is a better way, but the better way is to be an independent Scotland where you can care for your own people rather than provide for the private profits of the few. That has to be brought about and if it cannot be delivered by a referendum, we have to make the coming election the plebiscite. Independence is the right of the Scottish people; it is not subject to a veto from Britain, or from a British Prime Minister.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I now have to reduce the time limit to three minutes, as we go to Wales. I call Jonathan Edwards.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind) [V]
Diolch, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It is, of course, no surprise that a Government who are willing to undermine people’s rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly by pushing through powers to restrict public protest will not authorise Scotland’s right to choose its constitutional future. Despite their best efforts, the British Government have utterly failed to prevent the turbo-boosting in support for Scottish independence.
We in Wales who are looking at developments in Scotland see that the status quo is finished and we are having to think about what that means for us. I suspect many in my country share the feelings of the former First Minister, Carwyn Jones, that an England and Wales Union has little appeal. The reality is that the choice facing the people of Wales and Scotland is increasingly moving towards between seizing independence or being left with neutered ceremonial buildings in Cardiff Bay and Edinburgh—devolution in name only.
As has become so painfully clear, Brexiteers in this House gave little thought to the impact of leaving the European Union on the British state itself. However, one thing I have learned from my years in this place is that the British establishment never leaves a good crisis to go to waste. Realising that leaving European economic frameworks would require the creation of new structures for the British state, or the Great Britain part at least, the British Government pounced on every opportunity to place a Westminster straitjacket on Wales and Scotland, even within devolved competencies. The default position has been to centralise power in Westminster, a position regrettably accepted by the Labour party, which has always endorsed ultimate Westminster primacy, despite being the governing party in Wales.
I make that point because the Labour party’s compliance has consequences: a broken funding system, an ever-increasing wealth gap and the highest rates of child poverty of any UK nation. Never have those failings been more apparent than during this crisis, where those who have the least have been affected the most. Members are used to bandying statistics around this House in a game of one-upmanship, but I ask them, if they take anything from what I say today, to reflect on the real state of affairs for communities and families in Wales and Scotland. The economic and social model of the British state is letting them down and those who fail to oppose it are complicit.
The Labour party may have accepted that position, but increasingly the people of Wales, as they have in Scotland, are refusing to do so, hence the remarkable growth of YesCymru and the increasing support for Welsh independence. The devolution middle ground, which served the interests of all the Welsh political parties in different ways, is disappearing. The current constitutional turbulence is therefore likely to become a hurricane in the years to come. When the wind blows over, I hope to see Wales, Scotland and indeed England emerge as confident, outward-looking, collaborative and independent nations. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak as a proud Unionist in a debate on Scottish separation. The latest poll shows that 57% of people would vote against separation from the United Kingdom—what a ringing endorsement of the SNP’s record in Scotland that is! On 15 July, I spoke in another SNP debate on the issue of separation. As I said then, this is nothing more than a narrow-minded, party-focused, face-saving measure to cover its dire failures in government—and the Scottish people are fast becoming aware of that.
It is no surprise that the SNP wants to put “indyref 2” on the ballot paper, because the Scottish people know that the SNP’s record on domestic issues is catastrophic. In fact, its persistent calls for separation are the only transparent thing about the party. Let us take a quick snapshot of the SNP’s record in government. Aside from its misleading First Minister, the SNP has failed to pay out £200 million in business support. Before the pandemic, the SNP presided over the lowest rate of job creation in the UK. International PISA study results show that the Scottish education system has gone backwards. The SNP is refusing to publish a crucial review into its failed curriculum reforms. Most areas of Scotland have fewer police officers on the frontline since the failed merger. Violent crime in Scotland has been rising for the last five years. The SNP has missed its own legal emissions targets.
Paul Holmes
No, I will not; I do not have much time.
The SNP said in 2014 that an independent Scotland would take 18 months to be set up. What a bizarre claim. No plan for how, and no detail on how—no chance when it comes to May. The SNP’s internal squabbles and factional infighting show that it has no plan for the people of Scotland, and it will make Scotland a poorer place by its obsession with separation, providing no detail on what that means for the people it supposedly serves. The people of Scotland are waking up to the way in which they are being let down by the SNP.
Alan Brown
It is good of the hon. Member to tell us what the people of Scotland are thinking at the moment. What is important is how they vote on 6 May. Again, if the people of Scotland vote for parties that have a referendum in their manifesto, surely the claim of right should be respected and the will of the Scottish people should be respected, and there will be a referendum.
Paul Holmes
I fully respect the right of the Scottish people. I respect the right of the decision that they made in 2014, and I wish that the hon. Gentleman would show the same respect to the people he serves by accepting that decision, which he and the leader of his party—who I know is in difficulty at the moment—claimed was a once-in-a-generation decision. They should abide by that and not try to mislead the Scottish people. In the next few weeks, I have every confidence that unity and progress will shine through, and many people in Scotland will vote Conservative to keep the Union together. Then, hopefully, the Scottish National party will be given the shock that it really needs.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I look across at the SNP Benches and see Members who I consider to be friends and who I have worked well with in parliamentary cross-party groups. I am proud that the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) has described me as a grandson of Skye, in memory of my grandfather Alexander Matheson, who was born there over a century ago. Of course, I am English. I am also British, and I am a Cheshire man—a Cestrian. It is possible to identify as all three, which is why I am saddened that the narrow, divisive nationalism of the SNP has been allowed to eat away at people who, in every other sense, should know better. If nationalism is the answer, they are asking the wrong question. It is an ideology based on division, difference and setting one against the other solely on the confected grounds of limited, singular identity.
SNP Members cannot see the irony, as they sit across from the Conservatives, that they are two cheeks of the same backside. The Tories have become the party of petty little Englander nationalism. They claim to be Unionists, when in fact the current Government are the biggest threat to the Union, as we see with the predicted consequences of Brexit for Northern Ireland and the slashing of parliamentary representation in Wales. The SNP revels in this, as though working in a symbiotic relationship with the Tories, perhaps to promote its own narrow agenda and distract from its own terrible failings in government.
Gary Sambrook
The hon. Member says the Conservatives are the biggest supporters of separation. May I remind him that the Labour party lost its voters in Scotland because it did not stand up for the Union as strongly as it should have done, which opened the door to the Scottish National party?
Christian Matheson
Oh, so it is all our fault. Well, it is the Conservatives’ fault what is happening in Northern Ireland and for driving the Scots away, because the truth is that the SNP is more similar to the Tories than it lets on.
Today, there are two debates led by the SNP, one on constitutional affairs—independence—and one on Brexit. In fact, they are the same debate, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said, because exactly the same baseless arguments that the Tories made about Brexit, the SNP now makes about Scottish independence. The Tories showed the UK the failings of their own Government and said, “Look, everything will be fine if we are free of the EU.” The SNP is also showing the failings of its own Government and the UK Government and saying, “Look, everything will be fine if we leave the UK.”
In the case of Brexit, every prediction was that we would take a hit to our economy, but that did not matter because we would be free. In the case of Scottish independence, every prediction is that the Scottish economy would take a big hit, but that does not matter, according to the SNP, because it would be free. Both campaigns were and are about narrow nationalism, appealing not to sense, reason or objectivity based on facts, but to emotion stirred by distrust of others. None of the Brexit argument stood up; it was pure ideology. None of the Scottish nationalists’ arguments stands up to scrutiny either; theirs is a pure emotional ideology. I am just waiting for them to roll out “Take back control” as their campaign slogan and the circle will be complete.
Alan Brown
I am a wee bit disappointed in the hon. Gentleman’s contribution, because he knows we are better than that. We want a forward-thinking, outward-looking country that is not tied to this backward-looking global Britain. What is wrong with wanting a country where the electorate elect the parliamentarians of their choosing so that they have control?
Christian Matheson
I am quite happy for the electorate to elect a party and a Government of their choosing. That is what democracy is.
I implore the people of Scotland not to get conned again by impossible promises; not to be hoodwinked by the mirage of the oasis of independence; not to fall for the same tricks that persuaded people to vote for Brexit, because the same bogus arguments are being deployed now for independence, just in a different context; and not to be seduced by the power of the dark side that is divisive nationalism, because ordinary people in Chester have the same problems as ordinary people in Aberdeen and Inverness and Motherwell, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) said. If the UK is weaker by leaving the EU—and we are—then Scotland will be weaker by leaving the UK.
It could well be that the people of Scotland have had enough of being ruled by the Conservatives. Guess what? So have I. The answer is to get them out, not to stick our heads in the sand and wish them away through the mirage of independence. So I say to the people of Scotland: it may not feel at the moment like a partnership, a brotherhood and sisterhood, a commonwealth—it certainly does not from where I am standing, seeing the destruction that the Tories are wreaking—but England needs Scotland too. Scotland will be weaker out of the UK, and the UK will be weaker without Scotland.
I reckon that a chunk of the SNP’s support is not necessarily for independence, but is an anti-Tory vote—and who can blame people for that? Now, with the outstanding Anas Sarwar leading Scottish Labour, I predict that much of that chunk of support will start to come back to Labour, because now, with real leadership, there will be real scrutiny in Scotland of the effects of independence and the failings of the SNP. The Tories cannot provide that and do not want to provide it; as I have said, they are now the party of petty English nationalism, and the truth is that they do not care if we lose Scotland. But I do care; I am proud to be British—and even more so because Scotland is such a big part of being British. We have a magnificent common shared history. Get the Tories out, ditch this impossible, divisive, corrosive obsession with nationalism, and our shared common future will be brighter.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) [V]
We, the United Kingdom, are the sum of all our parts, and of course Scotland is a vital part of that Union. Every British child born to this country enjoys a wealth of culture, language and ways of life, and that is brought about by our precious Union. We often hear the phrase “a family of nations”, and that is exactly what we are—a family. I do not live in Scotland, but I do not recognise it as just a country far away on a map; rather, I see it as a contributing factor to my character, my culture and my heart.
Although it is disappointing that the Scottish National party has chosen to hold this divisive debate on nationalism today, I do not want to use this as an opportunity to score political points against the SNP. Of course, it could have taken this opportunity to speak about the economic recovery after covid, or perhaps its track record on health or education, but I see this debate as a direct challenge to my identity, my beliefs and my values as a proud member of the United Kingdom. Of course, without Scottish influence on the UK, my philosophy of Conservatism would be devoid of two greats: Adam Smith and David Hume.
Looking to our position in the world now, to what global Britain looks like emerging from the covid-19 pandemic, I would like to set out the stall for why we are better as one United Kingdom—as one family. Maintaining the UK continues our climate of stability and certainty. It provides security for jobs and businesses. It provides security for who we are and our values. Under our vital Union, we have seen a Union dividend for every man, woman and child in Scotland of nearly £2,000. Public spending per person in Scotland is £1,600 higher than the UK average, and an estimated 545,000 jobs in Scotland are supported by trade with the rest of the United Kingdom. During the covid-19 pandemic, the UK Government have provided an extra £8.6 billion for the Scottish Government Budget, protecting more than 900,000 jobs.
More importantly, Scotland’s contribution to our national story is profound, and has had an impact on all of us. Scotland’s unique creative pulse brings us the romanticism of Robert Burns and the eruptive arts of the fringe festival. The food and drinks sector in Scotland is one of the most important in the UK economy, and Scotch whisky is one product that is known around the world. The Scottish mining and oil industry is at the forefront of the UK’s technological growth story, providing the UK with many high-skilled jobs. The academic arm of Scotland, which produced Smith and Hume, continues to be of tremendous benefit to the UK, and we can continue to learn from it.
It is incumbent on all Government Members to shout from the rooftops the amazing contribution that Scotland makes and how important each and every Scottish man, woman and child is to us. We cannot allow the petty politics of divisive point-scoring and nationalist politics to take away from the fact that our Union is the longest lasting marriage in history. It is a story of success, history, culture, values and beauty.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Across the two debates and the two motions, the SNP has totally failed to engage with the issue that people across the UK and the world have lived with, grieved over and endured over the past year. The reality facing millions of ordinary Scots is the recovery from the pandemic. As others have said, SNP Members could have used this time to discuss the issues that matter: jobs, the economy, climate change, and education. When the SNP wants to consider elections to the Scottish Parliament, as they do in the motion, it seems that the only thing in which it is interested is the constitution. Today, a Survation poll shows that independence is one of three top priorities for only 8% of Scots. The pandemic was not deemed important enough to be mentioned in the motion. I am afraid that, after 14 years in power in Scotland, the SNP is consumed by internal problems and is out of touch.
Recovery from the pandemic is important for my constituents. When I think of the small business owners in North East Fife who have contacted me over the past year—the restaurants, cafés, holiday parks, hair salons, wedding organisers and mobile caterers; when I think of the problems facing almost 4,500 constituents who have got in touch with me over the past year; when I think about constituents in higher-priority groups who have contacted me and are still wating for their jab four weeks after the First Minister said that she was “satisfied” that everyone in those groups had been offered a vaccine; when I think about people who have got in touch, concerned that covid case rates in Scotland are the highest in the UK, or who are worried that yesterday there were 17,000 covid tests in Scotland, compared with 1.5 million in England; I think what do they want, and what is their priority? What is Scotland’s priority? Is it to pursue a referendum this year, as the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, Europe and External Affairs wants at a time when Scottish GDP has flatlined, after a record fall in 2020? Is it to advocate for an agenda that creates endless uncertainty for business about everything from the currency that it uses to the way in which pensions are nominated, at the very moment when many of them are on the brink?
I will be clear. Now is the time to put recovery first—that is what Scottish Liberal Democrats want. We want investment in green jobs, high-quality education, good mental health services, and measures to tackle the climate emergency. If the SNP had focused on those things during its 14 years in power, how much better life would be for people across Scotland. Over the past year, everyone in the House has dealt with many pieces of casework from constituents struggling through the pandemic and lockdown, and from people who have tragically lost loved ones. They want our focus over the next few years, as we approach the May elections, to be on how we recover. The Scottish Fiscal Commission estimates that the Scottish economy will not recover to pre-pandemic levels until the beginning of 2024—almost two years later than the UK a whole. When does the pandemic really end? If we do not focus on recovery now, there is a risk that the 2020s will become a decade of stagnation in Scotland. After 14 years of SNP rule, we have seen so much opportunity wasted. Let us put recovery first.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
I can understand why independence calls to the souls of some in our devolved nations. The Welsh have a word for it— “hiraeth”—but our experience with Brexit has shown us just how complex things can be when separating from a partner. The UK has far fewer co-dependencies with the EU than Scotland does with the rest of the UK, but even so, as I am sure the later debate will attest, our recent divorce has been complicated and at times painful.
With Scotland, we share a land border, a currency and a long history. Untangling that relationship is likely to be at least as fraught. Had Scotland voted for independence in 2014 and become part of the EU in its own right, the EU trade structure would have been in place for open trade with the rest of the UK, but the goalposts have changed. With the UK outside the EU, no such structure exists. An independent Scotland would need to negotiate a new trade deal with the rest of the UK, as well as with the EU and other countries globally. Yes, Scotland could apply for EU membership but there is no guarantee that it would be welcomed. Scotland’s deficit is twice the EU target and, with its ageing and rural population, its public spending is already £15 billion a year higher than its tax and North sea oil revenues.
If Scotland did vote for independence, what impact would that have on Scotland’s economy? First, consider that the majority of Scotland’s trade is with the UK. About 60% of its exports go to the other nations of the UK. Only around 20% go to the EU and the remainder go to the rest of the world. Then, consider tourism: the Scottish Government website describes tourism as a
“cornerstone of the Scottish Economy”,
accounting for 5% of gross value added and one in every 12 Scottish jobs. Some 80% of its tourism comes from the UK and, of the other 20%, many visitors arrive in England and visit Scotland as part of a UK tour.
There would of course be significant downsides for the rest of the UK, too. The Union would lose an important element of its rich cultural heritage. The UK imports over £60 billion in goods and services into Scotland, so if we put a border between Scotland and the rest of the UK, with possible visa and customs checks, controls, duties and taxes, and maybe a different currency as well—I will leave it to the House to work out whether that would put any of us in a better place.
I can understand why independence calls to some, but it is a romantic, idealised vision of independence. It is not grounded in practicality or realism. Independence simply increases the risks and uncertainty for our devolved nations, whereas a strong United Kingdom offers certainty and security for its citizens. As part of the UK, all our nations can pool and share their resources and strengths. We are stronger and more resilient as a Union, and I believe in one Union and one United Kingdom.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) [V]
I suspect that even the most ardent Unionist would find it hard to disagree with the basic proposition that a country in a voluntary political union should at all times have the right to choose its constitutional future. The real question is when Scotland should be able to revisit the decision made in September 2014. British politicians telling us that now is not the time tends to mean not ever, so let us analyse what “once in a generation” means in political terms.
The six and a half years that have passed since the 2014 referendum have been tumultuous. We have had three general elections, three Prime Ministers and a UK-wide referendum on EU membership, followed by a serious push for a second referendum on the same topic from people such as the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who is now so averse to a second independence referendum. Notwithstanding those efforts, Britain has left the European Union and now we are suffering from a global pandemic. That is a lot more political change than normally happens in the span of a generation. The result of all this turmoil is that more and more people living in Scotland want to revisit the decision made in 2014.
England and Scotland chose markedly different paths on Brexit. That, and the fact that people have more confidence in the Scottish Government’s handling of the pandemic than the British Government’s, are major factors in the change of heart taking place in Scotland. Perhaps the biggest problem that the UK Government and the official Opposition have in attempting to stop another independence referendum is the existence of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. That Act provides that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland may allow repeat referendums on Irish unity with only a seven-year interval in between. Even allowing for the very different context, if seven years between referendums on the question of whether to leave the United Kingdom is acceptable for Northern Ireland, why is it not acceptable for Scotland? I would like the Minister to address that directly when he sums up today.
The British Government have pressed ahead with their constitutional priorities regardless of the pandemic and its economic fallout, so why should not the Scottish Government? The need to rebuild our economy and our society in the wake of the pandemic provides an impetus to rethink our priorities. If we do not take radical steps now, there will be no change and we will go back to where we were before, which was not a sustainable place. In order to transform Scotland, we need full control over all the decisions that affect us, not just limited powers to tinker around the edges. Independence for Scotland is not an end in itself, but a means to ensuring that the vital decisions about how we run our economy and our society are taken close to home, so that we can do things differently and better.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
It always really saddens me when time in this place is used by some constantly to go back to their obsession with separation. It is not that I think that Scotland cannot go it alone: I have faith in Scotland and a lot of respect and love for Scotland. It is that I worry about the loss of Scotland’s contribution to our United Kingdom. Strategically, economically and culturally, it is a huge player in the successful global powerhouse of the United Kingdom.
Culturally, people travel from across the world to visit the United Kingdom. They do not necessarily go to London to have a look round, or even to my own home city of Birmingham; they also go to Scotland to the Edinburgh festival and to experience the highlands, which I myself love to visit at least once a year. Economically, Scotland makes a huge contribution to our exports. Whisky, for example, is the single biggest food and drink export from this country. Strategically, too, Scotland is important, especially when it comes to defence. Yesterday, the Prime Minister gave us an update on the integrated review, in which it was said that Russia was our greatest threat. When the RAF intercepted Russian bombers, it left from Scottish air bases. That is a huge contribution that Scotland makes to the defence of this country.
I will also mention family ties. Today, I am wearing the tie of the clan Farquharson. My sister’s fiancé, Andrew, donated this to me so that, at some point, I could make a speech in it. I thought that today would be apt, because it is the family ties that we all share across the United Kingdom that are so very important. I hope that, as Andrew is the father of my little nephew, Freddie, the Union will carry on for many generations so that little Freddie can experience the benefits of our great Union, too.
The hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) made a very good point about devolution. Many people in Birmingham feel that Westminster is a far-away place and that it does not understand many of their problems, so that problem is not necessarily unique to Scotland.
Devolution comes with responsibility. Unfortunately, the Scottish National party constantly use distraction as a technique to take away from its responsibility for some of the abysmal services that it runs in Scotland, including education, local government finance and transport to mention just a few. Responsibility is very important. It is tiresome that SNP Members keep coming to this place and using up valuable time to further their agenda for separation when really what they should be doing is having a debate on how Scotland is run. I very much hope that, on 6 May, people will not give them the mandate for a second referendum that they so wish for.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
Today I am privileged to be speaking in both Opposition Day debates: on Scottish independence and on Brexit. I oppose Scotland leaving the United Kingdom for the very same reasons that I am devastated that we left the European Union. My constituents and I know the value of unity: togetherness over division, interdependence over individualism. Those in favour of Scottish independence and Brexit have come to blows in the past, but, at the same time, they put forward similar arguments. The Scottish National party insists that Westminster is the source of all Scotland’s problems, as we were led to believe that Brussels was the source of ours. That cannot be believed, and that is not true.
The SNP has ruled the Scottish Parliament for 14 years. Homelessness and drug deaths have sky-rocketed and councils have been starved of funds. The past four years of division caused by constitutional chaos should not be repeated. I cannot think of anything more upsetting than going through that a second time to break up an even longer and more meaningful Union. As a United Kingdom, we have a proud and pleasing history of achieving extraordinary things. Together, we were founding members of the United Nations, and we built this international collective based on our principles of solidarity. In the 20th century, together we fought off the rise of fascism, we are leaders in the G7 and the G20, and we have been among the highest donors in foreign aid. We are so much stronger as a United Kingdom with our collective finances, skills, social contribution and academic institutions than we would be as separate entities. We have so much more to offer our citizens and the world, but in this global world, the Scottish nationalists want to take us back 300 years to a fractured past. Surely, we should not be looking backwards; we should be looking ahead.
We should not dismiss how we have grown together through an industrial revolution, world wars, justice movements and social change. It is Thatcherism that savaged Scotland, and I am proud of Labour’s history in creating Scottish devolution. Under this Labour leadership, we are determined to repair relationships and to strengthen devolved powers. As Scotland approaches its parliamentary election, the focus must not be on making it weaker by splitting our country in two. As we come together out of this pandemic, we must make Scotland stronger as a valued and significant part of the United Kingdom.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a pleasure to rise to speak in this debate. I for one do not think the SNP gets enough Opposition day debates. I think a party of its size in this place deserves more than three in the course of one parliamentary Session. However, it is surprising, given everything that this country, Scotland, the United Kingdom and the world is facing right now, that it has chosen to use one of its three days—only three days—to debate this issue above all others, banging on about another independence referendum. It is very much like groundhog day in the House of Commons.
The SNP has chosen to debate not education, not the recovery, not economic growth, not jobs, not health, not drug deaths, not infrastructure, not broadband, not local government funding, and not the serious issues surrounding civil service impartiality and the separation of powers within the Scottish Government. No, the Scottish National party—in which I have many friends, but which I regard as a single-issue, mass membership pressure group, masquerading as a serious party of government—wants to talk about its sole obsession: ripping apart our United Kingdom.
We know why. Why would the Scottish National party not want us looking at all the issues I have listed? Because on every single one it is failing Scotland. It is failing Scotland on education, with the attainment gap wider than it was when it got into power. Kids from disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to get to university in Scotland than they are in England. It is failing Scotland on jobs and the economy, with growth of only 1.8% expected in Scotland in 2022, compared with a prediction of 5% for the rest of the UK, and with jobs growth at a rate less than that of the UK prior to the coronavirus pandemic.
The SNP is failing Scotland on health. The 12-week treatment time guarantee, which was unveiled with great fanfare by the now First Minister Nicola Sturgeon when she was Health Secretary in 2011, has never once been met. The Royal College of General Practitioners expects a shortfall of 856 doctors in Scotland by 2021. It is failing Scotland on drugs deaths, with the highest drug deaths rate in Europe. That shameful statistic has occurred on the SNP’s watch.
The SNP is failing Scotland on infrastructure and failing Scotland on the roll-out of broadband. In 2018, Fergus Ewing, the Rural Economy Secretary in the Scottish Government, threatened to resign if he failed to deliver on its flagship R100 project, which aspired to make superfast broadband available to every single premises in Scotland by the end of 2021. The latest projections tell us that it is more likely to be 2026. Resignation incoming? I think not.
There are those in the SNP who will say—I can hear the keyboards clattering now, and I can almost hear the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) saying—that I am talking Scotland down. I am not. Let me be clear: I have simply outlined the record of a failing, arrogant, tired Government who have dragged Scotland down, down, down.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
My hon. Friend mentions talking down Scotland. Does he agree that he is one of the most vocal voices in this Parliament for the people of Scotland and their wants and needs?
Andrew Bowie
That is very kind of my hon. Friend. I couldn’t possibly comment; that is for other people to judge.
The SNP has dragged Scotland down, down, down. In fact, the only things to go up in Scotland recently have been the taxes. That is the record of the Scottish National party. It is not a surprise that we are now on to the fourth poll in a row showing support for the Union increasing and support for separation going down. As the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said a few weeks ago, “Cheerio, cheerio, tick-tock.”
Let us leave this divisive and disruptive debate behind us. Let us move on and tackle the issues that really matter to Scots—rebuilding, growing, creating jobs and making our schools, once again, the best in the world—comfortable in ourselves, happy as a strong, devolved nation within a great and enduring family of nations.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) [V]
Oh, he’s finished? Thanks very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
For far too long, the Union has been a millstone around Scotland’s neck—an 18th-century political construct, unfit for the 21st century. Not a single country that has gained its independence from the UK has returned cap-in-hand to beg for readmittance; not a single nation has become independent and regretted its choice. Scotland will be no different. The “Union dividend” has been the destruction of industry, the depopulation of our towns and cities on a scale seen nowhere else in Europe, and the tearing down of the welfare safety net. Our infrastructure was left to fester, our transport network denied investment, our key industries asset-stripped and shipped overseas.
This Government’s mind-boggling and entirely counterproductive answer to their own failures is a Union connectivity review that attempts to overrule the democratically elected Government of Scotland and place power in the hands of a tiny cabal of Ministers whose party has no mandate in Scotland. Moreover, it has zero mandate in Wales or Northern Ireland, either. It has been decades since the Conservatives had any democratic legitimacy beyond the English border.
I have campaigned for independence since I was a boy, and I was at George Square for the poll tax demonstrations, the imposition of which by the Thatcher Government on their tartan testing ground was done against the wishes of the people of Scotland and their own Ministers. With the connectivity review and other power grabs, they seem entirely unable to learn the lessons from our own history. Incidentally, the poll tax was very much a catalyst not only for the current support for independence, but for the insuppressible move towards re-establishing the Scottish Parliament. It is only since the return of that Scottish Parliament that we have seen the kind of real investment required—investment not just in bricks and mortar, but in our people too. Scotland is rolling out the biggest expansion of the welfare state for decades, because we believe in it, and we believe that with the full powers of independence we can harness our nation’s wealth to improve our welfare state still further.
There is a realisation among an ever growing majority of Scots that the UK is a failing state, having to resort to waving its Trident missiles about for international relevancy, wasting billions in public money that should be used to help people, not threatening to incinerate them. Our relations with Europe, a fundamental cornerstone of our economy and society for decades, torched and ruined, with businesses across the country counting the cost and workers losing their livelihoods. Scotland—an outward-facing, internationalist Scotland—wants no part in it. If Scotland votes for the opportunity to choose its own future in May, only a tinpot dictator would attempt to stand in its way. I am confident that we will seize that opportunity and the potential of independence, internationalism and the transformational change our country still needs, but which is blocked by a UK in full retreat having given up on working with others.
Independence is not a panacea. We will have to work hard to repair the damage done by generations of neglect and disinterest, but we will be working well on the early days of a better nation, rather than looking at the dying embers of the UK state.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
I have some sympathy with the SNP; it must have been difficult to decide what to debate today, given some recent developments. So it is pleasing to know that they have gone with the greatest hits. I always look forward to the SNP debates because, whatever the subject, the answer is always the same—separatism. Speakers on the Conservative Benches raise education, trade, businesses, currency and the fact that a once-in-a-generation referendum on separation happened in 2014. Then the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who is an outstanding orator and politician, stands up, ignores all the points raised, flaps his arms in outrage, quotes a few opinion polls and concludes that separatism is the only answer. It is a sort of modern-day Henry VIII strategy.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you know that I am from good Scottish mining stock, and the Union is personal to me because it runs through my blood. Like millions of others, including millions of Scots, I am looking forward to seeing my family again and to giving them a hug. However, at a time when the population wants to focus on coming together, the SNP wants to focus on tearing us apart.
The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) set out her objections and the fact that there are so many relevant things that we could be discussing today—the road map out of covid; the challenges that covid has created; the success of our world-leading Great British vaccine programme; our furlough scheme, and the fact that it has saved millions of jobs; the opportunity to create a better, greener future together—but they have all been put aside. Instead, we are discussing two issues on which we have already had referendums.
I have sat through many contributions from SNP Members in this Chamber. Unfortunately for them, they are becoming the biggest barrier to what they want to achieve. The truth is that the SNP has less faith in the great people of Scotland than I do. It is increasingly out of touch with the wishes of the Scottish people. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) just set out in an outstanding speech, the SNP is failing on so many important issues. The Scotland that I know is intelligent, tolerant and proud. It is a vital member of this Great British family, and its people want us to focus on recovering from covid and building a better future together. The politics of separatism is not the answer.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak in this important debate. It is a debate that people in England and right across the UK need to start paying greater attention to, because while I fully respect that the future of Scotland is one to be determined by the Scottish people—indeed, the Labour party’s position on Scottish independence and the Union is one that is determined and led by the Scottish Labour party—the decision that is taken by the people of Scotland will have ramifications right across the rest of the Union.
The argument I want to make on the part of the Union is both pragmatic and principled. The pragmatic argument is, “Why now?” Why now, in the midst of a global pandemic of a type we have not seen during most of our lifetimes and when the challenge is not simply to roll out the vaccine but to build the recovery? Why now would we plunge not just Scotland but the entire United Kingdom into a constitutional row consuming all the focus and all the resources when the focus must be on rebuilding our country? Why now, in the midst of extracting ourselves from one sophisticated political and economic alliance, which we have already seen has caused real challenges and broken promises, would we seek to repeat the same exercise again the very future of our own country?
Then, of course, I look at the record of the Scottish Government, and it becomes perfectly clear why independence will be on page 1 of their manifesto. The alternative is that their record will be on the front cover: 182,000 children left in poverty, even in households where one person is in work; a quarter of all households in fuel poverty, and that was before the pandemic; the NHS 12-week waiting time guarantee not met since 2012 and breached 360,000 times; the four-hour waiting time target not met since 2017 until the pandemic hit; 18-week mental health waiting times; and an employment rate that is actually lower than the United Kingdom rate. That is a record that we would see in the UK Government, too.
Mr Perkins
We have heard criticism of the SNP for picking this subject for this debate, but at least this matter is the responsibility of the UK Parliament. Many of the issues that my hon. Friend is raising are the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament, and so would be sensible things for the SNP to be spending the Scottish parliamentary elections debating.
Wes Streeting
Indeed—and that brings me to education, which is my hon. Friend’s passion, and mine. The number of teachers in Scotland is down by 1,700 since 2007; the promise to cap class sizes is broken; spending per pupil is down; and on the Scottish Government’s central challenge—to close the attainment gap—they are failing. Indeed, the First Minister herself said:
“Let me be clear—I want to be judged on this. If you are not, as First Minister, prepared to put your neck on the line on the education of our young people then what are you prepared to. It really matters.”
It is time for the First Minister to account for the record of educational failure in Scotland, because on class sizes, standards and the attainment gap, the record in Scotland is as abysmal as that of the Tories in the United Kingdom.
Christian Matheson
In outlining that dreadful record, does my hon. Friend share my concern that, with its internal divisions, the SNP has taken its eye off the ball for too long?
Wes Streeting
That brings me to the real risk of giving the SNP a majority: it is a question of not just independence but ethics and propriety at the heart of the Scottish Government. As much as I have tried to follow the Salmond/Sturgeon melodrama and the serious issues that lie at the heart of that case, it has been depressing to say the least to see factions and vested interests taking charge of ethical standards and ethics at the heart of Government. I do not care for one side of the SNP or the other—it is like watching a football match and wanting to both sides to lose—but the fact is, we have seen the SNP put its own divisions ahead of the interests of its own country. To put party before country is the central dereliction of any Government. We have seen where that got us with Brexit, and with the Brexit decision we have seen that the grass is not always greener on the other side. We have already been pulled out of the largest single market in the world and are now seeing the consequences; why on earth would Scotland leave the most successful market in the world?
In London and Edinburgh we see Governments who have been in power for far too long, with the resultant complacency, arrogance and record of failure. The choice that faces the Scottish people in May is not “Alien vs. Predator”—the Union offered by the Conservatives or the SNP’s Scottish independence; there is an alternative that is led by the fantastic leader of the Scottish Labour party, Anas Sarwar, with a national recovery plan that has the potential to unite Scotland and unite our country. We need to refocus on the priorities that matter. Whether a voter has been sceptical about Labour in Scotland or about Labour across the United Kingdom, we ask them to give our leadership in London and in Edinburgh a second look and to get behind the Labour party. Having listened to this debate, I think that at this point Labour is the only party that can keep the Union together and rebuild a stronger, fairer United Kingdom for the future.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
I would say it is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), but certain tweaks needed to be made to his speech for me to be able to say that.
Sitting here listening to this debate, it has struck me how depressingly similar much of what I am hearing it from the SNP truly is. A referendum was held to decide an incredibly important issue that affects the future of our whole country. Prior to the poll, all sides agreed that the result would be respected and that everyone would adhere to whatever the public decided. It would be a once-in-a-generation decision. People voted and a clear winner emerged, then suddenly the sands began to shift. Some of those on the losing side of the referendum began to move the goalposts and to insert caveats and get-outs. They started to demand that the vote was rerun or the question changed slightly. They claimed that things had moved on. Allegations were made against one side or another and the whole issue rumbled on for years. Does that sound familiar to anyone?
Like Brexit, the debate around Scottish independence polarises families and communities. It turns friends against each other and divides people from their neighbours. I therefore ask the SNP very gently: is now really the time for this? Is now truly the time to sow division and uncertainty, at a moment when we have not yet even come out of the pandemic, let alone recovered from it economically? When many people have lost, are losing or are worried about losing their jobs, it does not matter whether someone lives in Aberdeen or Accrington, their priorities are the same. I encourage the SNP to focus on the day-to-day issues rather than obsessing over constitutional changes.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) [V]
I have to say I cannot understand why the proposition that Scotland has the right to choose its own future is so controversial for some. I accept that not everyone in Scotland, or even further afield, wishes Scotland to become a self-governing country. However, I cannot comprehend these voices who are so afraid of what the people of Scotland may decide about their own future that they believe the solution is to prevent the people of Scotland from having the opportunity to make such a choice at all. Surely anyone can see that that is not a sustainable and logical position to take. For anyone in this Chamber to tell the people of Scotland—the people of any nation—that no matter what they vote for they will not have it unless we approve, only adds to the swelling SNP ranks, as increasingly the people of Scotland take exception to being told by those for whom they did not vote that what they might vote for in future will not be permitted. It makes a nonsense of any idea of a partnership of equals.
I say in all honesty that many Unionists are nervous about this strategy of simply denying democracy for that very reason. They know it plays very badly in Scotland. However, as many in the Chamber today will tell you off the record, they understand that, if the SNP, the party that exists to persuade Scots to choose self-government and will stand on that platform, wins the election in May and secures a majority, a mandate for an independence referendum will exist—and it will be delivered, just as it was delivered in 2014. Anyone who doubts that only has to look at the Tory election leaflets today going out across Scotland telling people that, if they want to stop an independence referendum, vote Tory. That is how we know that an SNP majority will absolutely deliver that mandate. It is as simple as that.
Despite the bluster, the attempt to divert the debate down blind alleys and the shrieking at squirrels, these are the undisputable facts. Today is about Scotland’s constitutional choices and I have to say to those who deny that such a choice should even exist: you are sorely out of touch with the people of Scotland.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
This debate is too often framed in terms of pounds and pence arguments—what Scotland does or does not get from its membership of the United Kingdom. Yes, that is important. We should look at the benefits. We should recognise, as any sensible person would, that almost £2,000 every year goes to every single man, woman and child in Scotland from the treasuries of Wales, Northern Ireland and England. We should recognise the incredible benefits of the Union in our response to the pandemic and the vaccine roll-out, which has been supported by England, by manufacturing in Wales and by the Novavax vaccine being manufactured in Scotland. We should recognise the strength of the United Kingdom Treasury to support businesses and families through this difficult time and, yes, we should recognise the strength of a single currency. But my personal economic experiences are much better than mere spreadsheets.
Before coming to this place, I was managing director of a business that is based in England. I did not think twice about setting up three businesses in Scotland because it is part of the Union of this country. They were profitable, they created employment and, more importantly, my business benefited from the expertise of Scots working together with us. I compare that directly with a contemporaneous decision not to invest in Ireland. Why was that? It was partly because of the different currency and partly because of the increased difference in regulations, but, if I am honest, the primary reason was it just felt harder; it felt more uncertain, with bigger risks. So I took the decision not to invest. It would be a tragedy for this country if that decision was played out because of separatists driving our country apart and leading us on different paths.
However, I recognise that identity is not measured in pounds and pence. That may sway some, but it would not sway me unless the Union was much more powerful than that, and it is so much more powerful than that. What about us; what about us as individuals and as families? Personally, the Union is who I am. I am proud to be a quarter Scots. I am proud to be a quarter Irish. I am proud to be half English and, although the maths does not add up, I am proud to be a bit Welsh as well. We are summed up by this as a nation. We are a family of nations, but we are also a nation of families.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend is a fantastic advocate for the Union. He says that it is not all about pounds and pence, but let us look at how much stronger we are together. The average per capita contribution to a constituency in England is £9,000. The average in Scotland is £11,000. Does that not show to the Scottish people that a United Kingdom, sharing prosperity and sharing Government income, is a good thing?
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It begs the question: if the separatists were successful in their game, left the United Kingdom and subsequently tried to join the European Union, what would they do with their structural deficit, which is more than twice the amount that is legally allowed for membership of the European Union?
I conclude with this thought. I am a mongrel, but I am proud of it. I am a mix of bloods and races from Scotland, Ireland, Wales and England. We are a mongrel nation and, like every mongrel, we are better and stronger for it.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I am not a mongrel. I am one of the few people speaking in the debate who does not have any Scottish blood, but I very much enjoyed the time that I spent campaigning in Scotland during the independence referendum in 2014. I went up to Scotland at a time when there were other elections in the UK because it was crucial for me to say to people that we in England desperately want Scotland to stay with the United Kingdom and be a part of our Union. While we made the argument that we thought it was in Scotland’s best interests to stay a part of that Union, we also felt passionately that the UK would be much weaker without Scotland. It would be heartbreaking if Scotland were to leave, but I accept that it is a choice for the Scottish people.
What is really important is the question of when that referendum should happen. We had the debate in 2014. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) said that we could have one every seven years or so, but it is clear that she wants to keep having the debate time and again in the hope that one time, on one day, they might just get over the line by 0.1%, and then there are no more referendums—then it will be over and the decision has been made.
The referendum in 2014 was pretty decisive, with 55% to 45% in favour of remaining in the Union. We should remember that more people in Scotland voted to stay in the United Kingdom than voted to stay a part of the European Union. We keep hearing from the SNP that Scotland is being dragged out of the European Union against its will, but more Scottish people voted to remain a part of the UK than voted to remain a part of the European Union. Opinion polls go up and down—we all know that in all walks of life—but one thing has been consistent: even people who want independence for Scotland do not think now is the time for it to happen. Those polls are really consistent.
Alan Brown
If the hon. Member properly analyses the polls, he will see that they show that the majority of people do want a referendum in the next few years, so that is wrong. He rightly acknowledged that it is for the Scottish people to decide, so when does he think the Scottish people should be allowed to make that decision, as it were?
Mr Perkins
It is a matter for the UK Government. It would be one thing for the SNP to go into a general election campaign saying, “A vote for us is about independence,” but it is not the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament, so it is very odd for the SNP to ask people to re-elect it on that basis.
The question I ask SNP Members is, how should someone vote this May if they want independence but think we should have a referendum in a few years’ time, rather than now? Should they vote for the SNP, knowing that the SNP will claim that that is a vote in favour of a referendum? We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) about many of the failings of the SNP Administration in Edinburgh. What about someone who thinks that the SNP is doing a good job and wants to carry on electing an SNP Government to run the Scottish Parliament but does not want independence? How should they vote, given that they know that, if they vote for the SNP because they want Nicola Sturgeon to continue being First Minister, that will be taken as a vote for independence? I am not getting any interventions on this. I am asking: how should these people vote?
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
The answer in both cases is surely to vote SNP, because the decision about independence is a separate one—for a separate referendum. It is to decouple the issues. That is why we support a referendum.
Mr Perkins
I am grateful to the hon. Member for that point; it is a really important one. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) was saying earlier, “If they vote SNP, they know what they are voting for: they’re voting for an independence referendum”, but the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) is saying, “No, if they want an SNP Government, they should vote for us and the referendum is a question on another day.” The mandate that the hon. Member for Edinburgh East was claiming at the start is not actually a legitimate one because it will actually lead to exactly what has just been said. I am grateful for that clarification.
In the event that Scotland leaves the United Kingdom, there will be a huge economic hit to Scotland. There will also be a huge hit to England. I have businesses in my constituency that have just discovered how difficult it now is to sell into the European Union as a result of Brexit. That is exactly what will happen to businesses attempting to trade either side of the Scottish border in the event that Scotland goes independent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South listed a variety of questions about independence that we never have a debate on and that remain unanswered. I was totally against Brexit, the things that we warned about in that respect are in many ways coming true, and there is no question but that it makes Scottish independence far more economically reckless than it would have been back in 2014. The idea that we would impose that on either English or Scottish businesses is a terrible mistake.
I really look forward to the elections in May. I hope that the Scottish people will look at the Labour party anew under the leadership of Anas Sarwar, who has started absolutely fantastically. I really hope that they will consider very carefully what they have just heard—that is, if they do not want an independence referendum right now, they should not vote SNP, because their vote will be taken as support for that.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
For a few days now, we have been playing a guessing game in the Parliamentary Private Secretaries’ WhatsApp group about the possible subject of this debate. The running joke, of course, was that, whatever it was—fisheries, education or colonising the moon—it was actually going to be about separatism. So imagine our surprise when SNP Members just dropped the pretence and brought forward this debate. It is the sort of transparency and honesty that their colleagues in Holyrood can only dream of and then promptly forget again.
As a card-carrying member of the Conservative and Unionist party, it will come as no shock to Members that I am not in favour of smashing up a successful 300-year-old Union based on petty spite and grievance, but it does give me the opportunity to point out that there is a special Union connection today—St Patrick’s day—as St Patrick was a Welshman. That is proof that we have been doing this for quite a while now.
Like a lot of people in this Chamber, I campaigned in the 2014 referendum. I did not personally have a vote, but I felt that I should get involved because it was my country that the Scottish National party was trying to smash up. I would hope that, if one of their populist cousins such as the UK Independence party or the British National party came to power here, people would come down from north of the border to support the Unionist majority in our fight against that particular brand of divisiveness; that is what families do.
My seat of Heywood and Middleton is in the north-west of England, and in a very real sense we are the Union region. We are the only region to be represented by MPs from all four of the home nations. We border Scotland and Wales, as well as four other English regions, and they make us who we are; they enrich us. Apart from the strategic placement of the Pennines to keep the Yorkist hordes at bay, we do not want any borders with them.
The SNP does not have a mandate for another divisive referendum; it is barely getting on with the day job that it was elected to do. It is spending all its time avoiding democratic accountability as MSPs and airing its dirty laundry in public. Unless people specifically went out in 2016 in the hope that their children’s hospitals would be closed and their schools would slide down the PISA rankings, it is very hard for SNP Members to justify the claim that they are delivering what people voted for. It looks increasingly like another diversion tactic to move the focus away from yet another botched policy or another sex scandal swept under the First Minister’s living room carpet.
Mark Fletcher
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. A few times, he has alluded to the fact that, irrespective of the question, when it comes to the SNP the answer is always separatism. Does he agree that the SNP increasingly resembles some sort of Nigel Farage tribute act?
Chris Clarkson
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely spot-on.
It will come as no shock to Members that I am a bit of a geek—I recently watched the BBC’s 2016 Holyrood election coverage. The First Minister was asked what her priority for the next Parliament would be. Based on the past five years, we might reasonably assume that it was a second independence referendum, or perhaps shutting down free speech, which is one of the few policies that her Government have actually managed to deliver. Instead, she said it was education—a subject on which she wanted to be judged. She then managed to avoid having a debate on the subject for over two years. It could simply be that she forgot to do so, like she forgot conversations with senior civil servants, other MSPs and, indeed, her own husband.
That forgetfulness seems to be the reason the First Minister has forgotten her “once in a generation” pledge from 2014 and her promise to respect the result. I politely suggest to our nationalist colleagues that they should focus on the day job, or they might find that the electorate have a slightly longer memory than the First Minister.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
I have listened to the debate with wry interest, because on 30 March 1989, I was actually there; my name is on the claim of right. I think I can say that I am the only Member of the House of Commons to have that honour.
I know about the Scottish Parliament—I served in it for 12 years; I was actually a Committee Chair—and I know what was behind it. It was described by John Smith as
“the settled will of the Scottish people”.
It was to have a different system, whereby democracy was brought back to Scotland and the Committees of the Scottish Parliament would challenge and hold the Government to account.
What we have today saddens me greatly. For whatever reason—perhaps because, in Scotland, the Greens are a wholly owned subsidiary of the SNP—we have an extraordinarily centralised Government, and the Committees rarely dare to raise their voices or to challenge the Government. I am sad because I think that is dangerous for democracy. I do not think it is what John Smith, Donald Dewar, David Steel, Jim Wallace and others were about at all in the constitutional convention, on which I served prior to signing the claim of right.
I must be honest that, when I hear the SNP talking about taking complete control, and when I see what it is like in Holyrood today, I shudder. We have to repair democracy in Scotland first and foremost—and, as others across the Chamber have said, what we must do now is repair the damage that has been caused in Scotland by the pandemic. People have suffered massively, and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) put that succinctly.
I will give one example. I have a constituent called Luke Graham, who lives in Wick. He knows all about mental health issues. Recently, in the John O’Groat Journal, he made the wise point that mental health problems had been around for a long time before the pandemic and, the way things stand, they are going to be around for a long time yet, unless the Government step up to the table and, to use a hackneyed expression, get on with the day job. That is what Scottish people want.
I was involved in the 2014 independence referendum, and if it comes to another referendum, I shall be involved again. At the end of the day, I am a Unionist. I know that the defence of the realm depends on Scotland, because the Scots make a huge contribution. I know that questions about the currency and about how Scotland would defend itself have not been answered.
I leave the House with this final thought: yes, let the SNP talk about indyref2 to its heart’s content, but I say to the SNP, from what I hear in my constituency in the highlands of Scotland, be careful what you wish for.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and a rare pleasure to be able to agree with our Scottish Liberal Democrat colleagues.
I could wax lyrical about my love of Scotland. New Zealand, the country of my birth, has a deep affinity with Scotland. It was forged from the blood, sweat and toil of Scottish immigrants, alongside those from other parts of the UK, such as my forebears—a wonderful melting pot of culture and values where all understood that anything could be mended simply by using a piece of No. 8 fencing wire.
Let me turn to today’s debate. Too often, we talk about the benefits of the Union to Scotland, including the sharing of fiscal resources, but I would like to focus on the benefits that Scotland brings to the Union. Economically, we have a wonderful trading relationship, where approximately 60% of exports come to the rest of the UK, including whisky, with more than 10,000 jobs in Scotland in that industry. I can certainly speak for my own household in that the day we run out of a decent bottle of single malt is a grim day indeed.
Scotland is essential to UK defence and meeting our obligations to our NATO allies. UK naval shipbuilding is concentrated there. Scotland’s top universities are important to the UK’s wider ambition to be a global leader in science. Culturally, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook), we are enriched by events such as the Edinburgh festival, which is a Scottish, UK and global event. I look forward to my visits to Scotland, where the welcome is always warm and the scenery stunning. Tourism is another fantastic asset for Scotland.
It is important to recognise that there is little that divides us in our human experience, whether people hail from Glasgow or Newcastle, or are immigrants like me—someone who is proud of the privilege of being a British citizen. It is the responsibility I now hold in this place always to be mindful of the UK-wide interest, along with the interests of my constituents in Guildford, who would be poorer for Scottish separation.
I support the amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. This last year, tackling coronavirus has impacted every corner of our precious Union. Thankfully, innovation has moved on significantly from mending things with a piece of fencing wire to the miraculous and speedy creation, approval and roll-out of lifesaving vaccines. I am delighted that all four corners of our Union have benefited and that the UK-wide furlough scheme has sought to protect jobs and livelihoods. We have much work to do to build back better.
Chris Clarkson
Like my hon. Friend, I have a dash of Commonwealth blood in me, although in my case it is maple syrup. Does she agree that our United Kingdom has informed a great deal of the character of many other nations and that to take that away would be to break those historical links, too?
Angela Richardson
Yes, indeed. Canada has benefited greatly from Scottish immigrants, as well as immigrants from other parts of the United Kingdom. We have fought world wars: soldiers from all over the Commonwealth could trace their roots back to all parts of this United Kingdom, and they fought heroically so that we could have the freedom we benefit from today. We should always recognise both the UK’s outward impact on the rest of the world and those relationships, which make us truly a global place to be. We are infinitely better placed to recover from coronavirus if we work together as four nations in our proud Union.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
Scotland is a great nation with a proud and unique history, and Scottish identity should be valued and cherished. That is why, when the Labour party last came to government, we delivered the devolution settlement and established the Scottish Parliament. But national pride, whether in Scotland or elsewhere, is deeply rooted in national prosperity and security. Economic strength is a foundation stone of national pride and the fact is that this economic strength can be achieved only if the four nations of the UK club together and pool our resources. Together, we are so much more than the sum of our component parts.
Gary Sambrook
The Labour First Minister of Scotland has said that the Union is over. Is it not the case that the hon. Member’s party is too willing to jump into bed with separatists and nationalists, which undermines the very foundations of the Union?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Last time I checked, Labour does not have a First Minister in Scotland; I think he must have meant Wales. That is an easy mistake for him to make, I am sure, but I would urge him to be a little more careful next time. The Welsh Government’s position is absolutely clear. We are the party of devolution. We delivered devolution. It is working for the Welsh people, just as it should be working for the Scottish people. We are utterly opposed to independence in Scotland and in Wales.
Britain is still a significant economy and a world power, despite the UK Conservative Government’s botching of the EU trade deal and the weakening of the international relationships that we should be building rather than destroying. The simple truth is that our economic clout and our national security are founded on our unity as a United Kingdom. We are entering an era of great power competition, with threats increasing. The SNP, were it to secure independence, intends to ditch our nuclear defence capability, which would thus undermine the security of the very nation it wishes to lead. Betting the house on rejoining the EU would also be profoundly unwise, given that 60% of Scotland’s export trade is with the rest of the UK, compared with only 19% with the EU.
The reality is that the greatest source of pride and prosperity for the Scottish people will come from rebuilding the economy post coronavirus, delivering jobs, and securing an economy resilient against future shocks.
Alan Brown
On nuclear weapons, allegedly Scottish Labour’s position is that it is against Trident and wants nuclear weapons removed from Scotland, so is Scottish Labour’s position untenable?
Stephen Kinnock
The position of the Labour party is that our commitment to our nuclear deterrent is indivisible and not up for negotiation. What is extraordinary is the position taken by this Conservative Government’s integrated review, which is to increase our nuclear capability by 40% while cutting our armed forces. That has to be the most counterproductive defence strategy that we have seen in recent times, but I digress.
The position of the Scottish National party Government is not what patriotism looks like. After the suffering of the past 12 months, compounded by a decade of Tory incompetence at UK level, now is not the time to roll the dice on a divisive referendum that would be profoundly detrimental to the interests of the people of Scotland and to the post-pandemic recovery. That is what isolationist nationalism would look like.
The Scottish Government are presiding over an education system in crisis, a health service lacking doctors and nurses, and an economy in which 230,000 Scottish children are living in poverty. The SNP’s sole focus should be on improving the lives of the Scottish people. Arguments about a referendum will not get a single Scot back into work, lift a single Scottish family out of poverty or rebuild the Scottish NHS. Scotland deserves better. Scotland deserves a Labour politics whereby our national pride is founded on our shared prosperity and our common purpose. Under the leadership of the inspirational Anas Sarwar, Scottish Labour can build that Scotland of the future.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
It will come as no surprise to many in this House that I am a proud Unionist, just like the vast majority of Scottish people in their most recent independence referendum.
I support our Union because we are better together. One of the amazing things that brings us together is how our towns and cities reflect one another. In Redcar and Cleveland, we produce more than 50% of the UK’s commercially viable hydrogen. We are home to the UK’s first hydrogen hub, linking us firmly to Northern Ireland and Wrightbus, producing the UK’s hydrogen bus fleet. Redcar and Cleveland is steel town. Although we sadly lost our blast furnace in 2015, we manufacture steel at British Steel in Lackenby, linking us firmly to the steel industry in south Wales, a lot of whose steel is still exported from Teesside. Redcar and Cleveland is home to a large petrochemical footprint—where I used to work. We transported ethylene molecules up and down the Wilton to Grangemouth ethylene pipeline, firmly linking Scotland’s petrochemical and oil and gas sectors to ours.
Our Union is better together, and it is time for the SNP to own up. It does not want independence. If it did, it would not want to join the EU. It just wants to break up our United Kingdom and will stop at nothing to achieve that. The latest polls are clear that the people of Scotland are turning away from independence, yet the SNP is desperately clinging to its sinking ship. It claims to represent Scotland, yet at every opportunity it ignores the voice of its own people when it does not fit the SNP’s narrative. We are now nearly seven years on from the 2014 referendum and the SNP still does not accept the result; just like the Labour on Brexit, it is constantly trying to overturn the will of the people. The SNP likes to tell us that a vote for the SNP is a vote for independence, but they know that that is not the reality. They prefer to shout as loudly as possible about independence so that they do not have to face the realities of their failures in leadership day after day.
While support for independence falls, the SNP shambles unravels. Scottish people can see for themselves the kind of Scottish Administration they have had for the past 14 years: one that is unfit to lead and unfit to listen, while they are breaking their necks in their obsession with the separation from our United Kingdom. If the SNP cared about Scotland, they would focus on improving education, not on separation. If they cared about Scotland, they would focus on cutting NHS waiting times, not on separation. If they cared about Scotland, they would focus on tackling rising crime and drug abuse, not on separation. The reality is that they do not care about Scotland—they just hate Britain. The SNP wants out of Britain and in the EU. The Liberals want to be in Britain, but in the EU. The Labour party will not tell us its view on either. Only the Conservatives are focused on a brighter future for Scotland as part of our proud United Kingdom.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The last Back-Bench contribution in this debate will be from David Linden.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. On Monday, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster called Scottish independence a “distraction” from “our economic recovery” from covid-19, and we have heard that today. However, the motivation for his comments is the real distraction. He wants a distraction from the billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money handed to Tory donors for personal protective equipment with no contract scrutiny. He wants a distraction from the billions wasted through the outsourcing of Track and Trace in England. He wants a distraction from the revelation that 39 out of 45 places to receive a share of the first £1 billion in towns funding are Tory constituencies. He wants a distraction from the cronyism scandal that surrounds the appointment of the Ofcom and BBC chairs, which would, frankly, make the Kremlin blush. He wants a distraction from the announcement that the UK is to spend billions on yet more nuclear warheads that can never be used. The Government have no money for the nurses on the frontline, who have been battling covid for the past 12 months, but plenty of money for their mates and for their cold war militarism. He wants a distraction from Westminster’s failure to include about 3 million people in covid support; from inadequate sick pay; from food banks unable to cope with demand; from the worst state pension in the developed world; from the disaster of Brexit, from the undemocratic and perpetually bloating House of Lords; from the pittance paid to disabled people on legacy benefits; and from the shocking two-child policy and rape clause.
I could go on and on, but what it really boils down to is this: if Scottish independence is a distraction from all of that, it is hardly any wonder that so many people in Scotland are having their heads turned.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
It is a great pleasure to sum up this debate. My only regret is that I am not in the Chamber to deliver the speech personally. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I always enjoy my little exchanges with and interventions from my friends on the Conservative Benches. Listening to their contributions today, it is a frustration that I can only send all my love to them virtually.
Some fantastic contributions have been made by my hon. Friends today and then there were some speeches from Conservative Members. How these debates usually go is that we make the positive case about Scotland and all the opportunities that independence will present to our nation. We talk of Scottish democracy, the claim of right and the Scottish people’s inalienable right to determine their own future, and then the Conservatives get to their feet to tell us why none of this is possible and why we would be better off with them and the Governments they would impose on us. Today has been a sort of variation on that theme, with so many of our Conservative friends telling us what we should be debating today, somewhat forgetting that this is our Opposition day and that, with all due respect to them, it is really a matter for us.
Independence and the constitution is the defining issue in Scottish politics and, if anything, it is not debated enough. In the latest STV poll, independence was rated as the most important issue that would influence the choice of the Scottish people—it was at 44%. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) was spot on when he said that when it comes to how we recover from covid, undoubtedly the most important issue in Scotland, we need the full powers of independence to fully secure the recovery that Scotland requires.
I always wonder what exactly the Scottish people think when they watch these debates and some of the curious views of Conservative Members—I am sure they find it all very amusing and bewildering. One of the reasons we bring these debates to the House is to allow the Scottish people a glimpse of the Westminster Tories’ thinking on our nation. Our friends are in fact the biggest recruiting sergeants we have. I thank all of them again for all their efforts and for everything that they do for the cause of Scottish independence. Their efforts will not be forgotten and, in a few short years, the Independence Cross, first class will be awarded to everyone from the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes) to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher). If I can, I will personally present them.
The choice that will be offered to the people of Scotland in the next few weeks is, “Who do you want to run our beautiful country? You, the people of Scotland, who live and work here, or them, Boris Johnson’s Conservatives and all their Brexit horror”. I was trying to discern from the speeches what exactly they still have to offer Scotland. Listening to Conservative Members today, it is quite clear that their Union has run its course and that it has absolutely nothing more to offer the Scottish people. There is no positive vision for Scotland in their Union. They have nothing more to offer, nothing more to give. The key thing in all this is the future, and Scotland must secure what it votes for. Democracy must be everything to us. Scotland must have the right to choose and define its own future.
In the past few months, the Government have tried to suggest to the people of Scotland that their democracy can be ignored and rejected as they consistently assert that they will not agree to participate in another referendum. All the lofty ideals of 2014—“Lead the UK, not leave the UK”, near federalism, “We love you, please stay”—have descended into this: “We will keep you as part of this Union against your will.” The slogan for the next election could well be, “Scotland, we have nothing to offer you but our chains”. What a pitiful condition the Union is in when it has descended into nothing other than an attempt to keep us captive.
I say to the Conservatives that there is a way to stop our referendum and that is to beat us in an election. It really is as simple as that. If the Conservatives win the next Scottish election, they will win the right to stop a referendum, but they are not considering stopping a referendum simply through democratic means. This is where it all starts to become deeply troubling. Their main means of stopping a referendum is to ignore and bypass democracy, impose their will, ignore elections and democratic outcomes, and say no to a majority. What a dreadful place to be even for this Conservative Government, with their cavalier disregard for so many democratic principles.
The Conservatives also know that the situation is unsustainable. They cannot keep a nation in a political Union in the 21st century against its will. Even they know that. When their Union becomes a prison, it has simply failed. They also know that saying no does nothing other than drive up support for independence even higher. If the SNP wins a majority in May and replicates the conditions of 2011, they know that it is game over.
While the Conservatives are saying that they rule out a referendum, they continue to prepare for one. We have seen the resources being ploughed in and the capacity that they are building. We see it in every piece of election material that is going through every door in Scotland just now, where they tell us that only by voting for the Scottish Conservatives can people stop an independence referendum. It is a curious strategy when they have supposedly ruled out that referendum.
I concede that today has been a bit more encouraging. I have looked at their amendment and listened to them very carefully. None of them has actually ruled out a referendum and our nation’s right to choose, other than, curiously—from Labour—the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). There is this weird tension that runs through everything that they are doing just now. We need only look at the demise of their Union unit to see that in all its glory. Essentially, they are conflicted as to whether to behave more consensually towards us or whether to continue to attack and undermine us. They really do not know whether to cuddle us or clobber us.
Their Union unit was the frontline between the cuddlers and the clobberers and it was so dysfunctional that even after its demise, I still do not know who actually won that battle. One minute it is “the full malky” Unionism, a full-frontal attack on our institutions, a constraining of our democracy and a disregard for our legislation, but they know that this aggressive “sink the heid” Unionism has been an absolute disaster for them. The Scottish people very much cherish their Parliament. They see attacks on it as attacks on themselves. And then comes the cuddling. The cuddlers now seem intent on getting us to love them by covering the country in Union Jacks as a sign of their largesse. Nothing could be more designed to irritate the Scottish people than that. When I first heard of this, I thought that it was some sort of grotesque joke, but they are actually serious about it. I do not know who advises them on all this nonsense, but all I can say to our agents and snoopers in Whitehall is that they are doing a great job. It will soon be time to come home. May will be the great independence election. I know the Conservatives have been encouraged by a couple of opinion polls showing support for the Union coming back a bit, and they have taken delight in one today that asked the Brexit question, not the independence one.
This is going to be an election about our future. I say to the Conservatives, “Let’s be constructive. Let’s work together with the principle of democracy at the heart of everything we do together. If it is clear that the Scottish people want to secure a referendum on independence, let’s respect that.” If the Conservatives win in May, they earn the right to stop a referendum. If we win, with the backing of the Scottish people, that must be respected too. Beyond democracy there is only chaos. Let us all agree to be democrats.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)
It is a great pleasure to wind up this important debate, which has been impassioned and, on the whole, good-natured, with one or two small skirmishes.
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). I sincerely mean that—I really enjoy his performances and admire the passion and dedication that he shows for his cause. I am afraid, however, that we have heard it all before. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) said, it is another spin of the greatest hits record. It comes as no surprise that SNP Members want to use this debate—they could have chosen any subject—to rehash their tired old arguments about why the United Kingdom should be split up, but it is a missed opportunity to debate more important issues.
I must take up the hon. Gentleman’s comment that we have not debated independence—separation—enough. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) said, SNP Members have not stopped talking about it since the day after the 2014 referendum. The idea that they have not had enough airtime is completely laughable. Let us face it: they could have chosen any subject for debate today. With elections for the Scottish Parliament less than two months away, I would have thought that they would want to use this debate to showcase their achievements after 14 years of running the Scottish Government. However, as many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes), have pointed out, their record on education and on public services generally has not been good. It is therefore not surprising that they do not want a light to be shone on that today. SNP Members could have used the time to focus on the covid vaccination programme and the other measures that have been put in place to see us through the pandemic.
Tommy Sheppard
I am grateful to the Minister for spending time discussing things that are not on the Order Paper. Would it be possible for him to address the Question that is on the Order Paper, and tell us whether he believes that the people of Scotland have the right to make a choice about their own constitutional future?
Iain Stewart
I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that I shall come on to that very subject. However, I am putting into context the question of why the SNP has chosen this debate, and why it has failed the people of Scotland by not concentrating on the many, many issues that are of primary concern to people in Scotland.
SNP Members do not want to talk about the vaccination programme and covid measures because that would show the effective partnership between the UK Government and the Scottish Government—something that undermines their perpetual grievance narrative. They could have used this debate to make their points about the security and international challenges that we all face, but that would mean conceding that together the UK is much stronger than the sum of its parts. They could have used this time to consider the economic challenges and opportunities that we all face post covid, but that would mean admitting that there is a need for all Governments in Scotland—local, Scottish and UK—to work together to face those economic challenges. That includes the work that we are doing on the city deal programme, the new trade deals that we are signing, the new export support that we are putting into Scotland, the removal of whisky tariffs that were damaging to Scottish jobs, and the connectivity review to make sure that all parts of our country are properly connected. But no, SNP Members chose to use the time to rehearse the same tired old arguments.
I am sure it will be of great comfort to people worrying about what education their child has missed during the pandemic or the security of their job that the separatists are looking for ever fresher opportunities to pit family against family and community against community in yet another divisive referendum. Glasgow will be hosting COP26 later this year, and the eyes of the world will be on us. We will be showing our global leadership on climate change. What message would it send to the world if Scotland were looking inward and debating constitutional matters that have been settled many years ago?
Iain Stewart
No, I have already given way once, and I want to respond to some of the points that Members have made.
SNP Members have the wrong priorities, and I can only imagine that they chose this debate today to shore up their core support and distract attention away from their domestic troubles and their failures in government.
Let me turn to some of the points that Members have made in the debate. I apologise if I am unable to get through all 30-plus contributions in the next three or four minutes. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) made some very telling comments in his contribution. First, he made a vain attempt to wriggle out of being called a separatist, but that is the SNP’s mission. It is to smash apart one country, our country, even though so many Members on both sides of the House today have demonstrated the importance of family, business, cultural and other societal connections. It would rip apart our country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) said, we are not just a family of nations; we are a nation of families. As my hon. Friends the Members for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti), for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), for Guildford (Angela Richardson) and many others have said, it would be a disaster to rip apart one of the most successful partnerships the world has ever seen.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh East also let the cat out of the bag when he said that the referendum might not be this year and that it might be very early next year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) said, the challenges from the covid pandemic will not end with the flick of a light switch. The challenges that we will have to rebuild our economy, our society, our children’s education and the mental health of the nation will run on for many years. People in Scotland want their Government to focus on that, and I think they will take very badly this obsession with having a referendum within the next 12 months.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) made the telling point that when people cast their vote, they do not cast it on just one issue. The issues that drive people’s votes will be manifold. A poll out today, I believe, shows that only 8% of people regard the constitution as a driver of their vote, and I believe the hon. Gentleman referenced Professor John Curtice in making that point. It is therefore arrogant for SNP Members to assume that every vote cast for them is a vote for another divisive referendum. I do not think people want to see that take place.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) mentioned the importance of connectivity across the United Kingdom, and I am delighted that we are addressing that through the Union connectivity review. The SNP refuses to take part in the review, because it dares to have the word “Union” in it. That, to me, is a mark of a very childish and single issue-focused party.
Unfortunately, time prevents me from referring to all the points I would like to refer to in this debate. I will conclude with this: Scotland voted decisively in 2014 to stay part of the UK and we are respecting that democratic decision. Now is the time to be focusing on getting livelihoods and the economy back after the covid pandemic.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Serjeant at Arms, are you able to have a look in the Aye Lobby, as there does seem to be a problem? [Interruption.] Still have a look, just to make sure everybody is out, please.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I give the usual warning that if anybody shouts for this Division, they are expected to vote in the way that they shout.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I will not suspend the House for three minutes because both Dispatch Boxes were sanitised during the Division.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you can give me some assistance. You, like I, will have been grateful, I am sure, to see in the road map out of lockdown that weddings will be able to start again from 12 April when we enter step 2. However, guidance that was issued yesterday implies that bespoke dedicated wedding venues will not be able to hold weddings after 12 April and must wait until 17 May, leading to the bizarre conclusion that one might be able to marry in the frozen food aisle of a supermarket, but not in a dedicated wedding venue. I wonder, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you may be able to assist me in how I could raise that point with Ministers to get some clarity so that we can help those dedicated wedding venues and the people who want to get married in them.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the right hon. Lady for notice of her point of order. The prospect of getting married in the frozen food department of Iceland, or of any supermarket, does indeed beggar belief. None the less, this is clearly an important matter, and there are several ways, as she will know, of raising the issue, including urgent questions or an Adjournment debate, but we have business questions tomorrow, which provides the opportunity to call on the Leader of the House for a debate—[Interruption.] However, we also have a Cabinet Minister sitting here who is eager to get to her feet.
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In the spirit of trying to be helpful, I know that my right hon. Friend raised this matter previously with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and he is talking to the covid taskforce about it. I have just spoken to my office, and we will come back to my right hon. Friend this afternoon with some clarity. I shall ensure that any further clarity that Public Health England can provide is put on the parliamentary intranet’s covid hub for all Members to see.
Douglas Ross
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope that this one is just as effective. The House has just voted on an amendment that said that we believe
“the priority of the Scottish people is to recover from the effects of the covid-19 pandemic, and that it would be irresponsible to hold a referendum at this time.”
I wonder whether you can clarify something, because I thought I heard you say, when you confirmed the numbers, that more than 50 MPs voted against it and, therefore, against prioritising a recovery from covid-19 over another referendum. Can you confirm that it was the SNP MPs in this House who voted against a recovery and for another referendum, and that it is unacceptable to the people of Scotland that they are putting party priorities above the public?
Mr Deputy Speaker
That sounds to me like an extension of the last debate. I could not confirm one way or the other which individuals voted which way, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will await with eager anticipation the delivery of exactly who voted which way either through Hansard or other electronic means. I think it is now time to move on to the next debate.
Leaving the EU: Impact on the UK
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 65 / Noes: 361 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House considers that the immediate economic damage, recent uncertainty and the projected long-term damage to business and trade from the UK leaving the European Union has disproven the perceived benefits of leaving the European Union; notes that the Scottish economy, specifically fishing, small businesses and manufacturing, are particularly vulnerable to market disruption; further notes that the failure of the UK Government to remain in mutually beneficial education schemes such as Erasmus+ is to the detriment of education and cultural exchange for people in Scotland and the rest of the UK; shows serious concern at the loss of EU funding and its replacement with the Shared Prosperity Fund; affirms the positive role immigration plays in society; and regrets the impact leaving the EU will have on those who wish to live, study and work in the UK.
The Brexit process has lurched from bourach to shambles to chaos—a lesson in incompetence and hubris. We are assured that, after the next hurdle, things will get better and that we will start to see all the Brexit dividends that we have been promised. So, where are we now? Less than three months after the transition period ended, the UK is facing legal action and the possibility of trade sanctions. The Office for Budget Responsibility said in its response to the Budget that the Brexit trade deal will see
“a long-run loss of productivity of around 4 per cent compared with remaining in the EU.”
Businesses that have struggled through the uncertainty of snap general elections, exit day deadlines coming and going, a rushed last-minute withdrawal deal, and a year of covid-19 now face the possibility of tariffs along with the added paperwork brought by being out of the single market. That comes hot on the heels of a record-breaking drop in trade between the UK and EU in January. The Office for National Statistics said that, after the Brexit transition period ended, UK goods exports to the EU fell 40.7% in the month and imports dropped 28.8%. Those are the largest declines since records began over 20 years ago.
The hardest hit export to the EU was food products—a growth industry in Scotland and a sector world-famous for its quality. Food and drink exports decreased by 63.6% in January this year. Seafood Scotland says that fish and shellfish exports were down 83% in January. That is devastating for the sector, which has relied on the swift movement of goods across borders. Donna Fordyce, the chief executive of Seafood Scotland, has spoken of the reputational damage this is causing, the market share being lost to countries such as Norway and the additional time and cost of processing all the bureaucracy. In evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, she said that firms were having to spend around £250,000 to £500,000 extra per year on paperwork. Seafood Scotland has talked of a “one-way trade border” that
“chokes UK exporters, but ushers in EU imports with open arms.”
That is the reality of the shoddy deal that the UK Government negotiated on Scotland’s behalf.
There was a 56.6% decline in exports in the chemical sector ahead of the UK falling out of the EU’s chemicals regulations, and manufacturing output decreased 2.3%, which the ONS directly attributed not to covid-19 but to a fall in exports caused by Brexit. Brexit has also particularly affected an export that my constituency is blessed with: an abundance of live music. Those working in creative industries are being denied the access to the EU that previous generations have enjoyed. They are being denied access to work and access to promoting Scotland and our culture abroad. We on the SNP Benches have been clear that creative professionals and those who support them must be entitled to visa-free travel.
Even for those who simply want to play music, there are barriers. My constituent Richard Traynor recently purchased a musical instrument from a German supplier with which he has dealt for many years. When it was delivered, the keyboard had warped, he suspects due to being held in sub-zero conditions at customs holding stations for a lengthy period. He had to pay customs fees to the UK Government approaching £100 for the instrument and its subsequent replacement, in addition to courier fees for a keyboard that cost £180—a real barrier to trade. Mr Traynor told me that
“the fees charged part of this has indeed been very difficult to swallow, but it does not compare to the empty hollow feeling this particular Brexit experience has left me with. I cannot believe I will no longer be able to buy from the many really nice folk I’ve traded with over the years from various places across Europe. I cannot imagine the damage this must be doing to small retailers such as folks who run small independent record labels or who run specialist shops...I guess this list could go on and on and on.”
There is growing evidence that companies in the EU are declining to send their goods to UK customers. The UK Government may not consider that a significant issue, but as my constituent points out, in so many ways, this chilling effect diminishes not just our trade but our way of life.
Visa-free travel is something that we have all taken for granted for some time. The loss of Erasmus+ and research funding has been a devastating blow to our universities, which already stand to lose so much from Brexit. The Scottish Government said from the outset that we wanted to remain a part of the scheme, and even Jackson Carlaw MSP, the former Conservative leader in Scotland, agreed. He said in the Scottish Parliament in May 2018 that
“it is not acceptable to me if the outcome of our exit from the European Union means that we can no longer participate in the Erasmus+ programme. It is perfectly clear that the direction that the UK Government is taking means that we will continue to participate.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 16 May 2018; c. 61.]
Of course, we know that that did not come to pass. I do not know whether that is a reflection of the relative influence of Conservative MSPs or whether they were also being led up the garden path by their Westminster bosses.
Mon cher collègue, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith), described the removal of the scheme as “economic vandalism” against the higher education sector. On research funding, the Wellcome Trust has said this week that the UK’s ambitions to be a science superpower
“are meaningless if they’re not backed up with funding.”
There were brutal cuts to international research this week, and we still have no clarity on the £1 billion hole in Horizon Europe. But the damage goes further than this.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Has the hon. Lady had sight of the London School of Economics report earlier this year which said that Scottish independence would be three times more costly than Brexit? Could she comment on that?
Alison Thewliss
Independence will give us many options. It will give us the opportunity to take our future into our own hands and not be reliant on the incompetence of those on the Government Benches.
Young people in my constituency—many from low-income families—and many new Scots are now being denied access to not just an experience but a European identity that previous generations of Scots have benefited from. More than 2,000 students from Scotland—the highest per head of population in the UK—take part in Erasmus+ each year.
My constituent and good friend Declan Blench is a translator working in European languages. He says that he and his colleagues are now cut off from not only our markets, because trade in services is so hamstrung by this deal, but the culture they have cultivated links with and come to love. Declan says that
“most of us learned our languages in adolescence to adulthood, precisely thanks to EU links, we didn’t all grow up in multilingual households. I was brought up by a single mum in an English-only household in a mining town—how on earth could I ever have done what I’ve done, if not for Erasmus? It is not just heartbreaking but galling—sacrificing these things for the sake of unrealistic notions of imperial grandeur, the ultimate symbol of post-imperial stress disorder that Britain suffers from so acutely.”
I could not have put it better.
I know that many across the House have benefited from studying and working abroad. It is wholly unacceptable for Tory Members to pull the ladder up behind them. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) recently admitted as much on the BBC “Debate Night” show. He said to a young person who asked a question:
“You and everybody else coming through right now will not have the benefits that I had through Erasmus, work, study abroad…But am I going to sit here and say that Brexit is perfect and your generation is going to reap the benefits? No I’m not. Because you’re not frankly at the minute. And I can see that.”
A moment of honesty from the Tories, but what a statement that is—that young people are not going to benefit in the way that people on the Tory Benches did; that they will take that away from the generations yet to come.
The UK Government’s replacement is a pale shadow of Erasmus+. There has been no meaningful consultation with devolved Governments on the Turing scheme, which seems to have been cobbled together at the last minute, with all the due consideration one would expect from this inept UK Tory Government. It will not pay tuition costs for students. Living costs have been cut to a fifth of what they would have previously been. It does not encompass youth work, culture, sport and vocational schemes, which are a huge part of the Erasmus+ scheme and very important to people in Scotland. We also now know that it will not cover apprentices or trainees not affiliated with further education colleges, and it will not cover teachers, youth workers, volunteers and many more who would previously have been eligible. LEAP Sports in my constituency, which works with LGBTI people, found Erasmus+ invaluable and forged international links, which helped to build the confidence and the skills of the people they support. For example, the three-year Outsport project on preventing violence and discrimination in sport based on sexual orientation and gender identity is vital work as we seek to challenge prejudice and make sport more inclusive for everyone.
Scotland’s economy has its own specific needs that are not being met by this Eton mess of a Government. We have an ageing population. Without inward migration, our population would be in decline, with more deaths than births. Scotland’s Economy Secretary Fiona Hyslop announced “A Scotland for the Future” this week, which examines the significant population challenges our country faces.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
The hon. Lady’s title in the SNP parliamentary party is shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, so as the SNP’s shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, and as she is speaking on the economy, can she tell us what currency Scotland would have if it was an independent country?
Alison Thewliss
The hon. Gentleman does not even want us to get to that point, so I am not even going to engage with his arguments. [Interruption.] He is not interested because he is not interested in independence. I would rather talk right now about immigration policy, and the damage that his policies are causing to people in my constituency.
We have the worst possible immigration policy. We have arbitrary targets, a hostile environment and cruelty built into every stage of the system. People who come to live and work in Scotland tend to be highly skilled and are net contributors in both productivity and Government revenue. I have seen how non-EU nationals have been treated, causing misery and hardship, unthinkable poverty and deprivation—all of that serving absolutely no economic purpose. It costs more to treat people so abysmally, and the UK Government do it anyway.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about immigration policy. Does she agree that it is ironic that earlier the Tories were trying to complain about the projected figures and the shortage of doctors, when they are the ones who are imposing this horrific immigration policy on Scotland?
Alison Thewliss
Indeed. There are very many aspects of immigration policy that cause significant damage, including loss of skills and the general hostility, which causes people to feel that they are not welcome in their own homes. It touches me every time that someone at my surgery asks me, “Why would they do this to me? Why would they make me so unwelcome? Can I go back to my country, to the war-torn conflict that I have come from? I would feel better there than I do here, under this Government.” Every time that I can, I say to somebody, “This is your home. Glasgow can be your home and you are welcome here.” I do not hear that nearly enough from the Tory Benches. This Tory Government now seek to extend the hostile environment to EU nationals. They do not do so in our name—ever.
The Expert Advisory Group on Migration and Population has estimated that the impact of post-Brexit immigration policy will be a 50% to 80% reduction in net EU migration to Scotland after 2020, and an overall reduction in overseas net migration of 30% to 50%. It has found that very few jobs in key sectors in Scotland will meet the arbitrary salary threshold this Government have imposed. The Home Secretary is aware of these issues and has done absolutely nothing to address them. There are currently no plans to include a route to jobs below the skills threshold, and the UK Government have rejected the possibility of any regional variation in the salary threshold. There has been no clarity on whether the Scottish shortage occupation list will continue to operate. This is a disaster for our remote communities, who depend on migration to counter depopulation. It is a disaster for businesses, who rely on that pool of talent to gain a competitive advantage in an increasingly global market. It is a disaster for our universities, who face a reduction in international staff and students and the experience and richness they bring. And it is a disaster for Scotland’s cities, whose wonderful cultural offerings are ever-enhanced by our migrant communities.
There are few starker examples than Brexit of how a Westminster Government are willing to sideline Scotland’s interests for their own cheap political gain. A differentiated approach to migration works well in Canada and Australia, and there is no sound economic reasoning not to do it, but the UK Government would rather put Scotland’s future at risk to appease the worst excesses of the Tory party.
Many people are beginning to realise that Brexit was a pig in a poke and the much-vaunted schemes that have followed it are merely a mirage. I spoke recently about the shared prosperity fund, the UK Government’s replacement for EU structural funds. It is almost unbelievable that we are now five years since the Brexit vote and still awaiting detail on how this scheme will operate. What we are certain of, however, is that this scheme will, due to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and the power grab, bypass Holyrood entirely. This UK Government have made sure that decisions are taken out of the hands of the people of Scotland and restored to the backrooms and corridors of Whitehall.
When we have the choice in Scotland, we invest in projects that meet the needs of our population. The Scottish Government built the stunning Queensferry crossing—toll-free and clearly adored by the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) as he delivered his keynote speech to the Tory party conference in front of it.
Alison Thewliss
The hon. Gentleman says that, but actually it is a bridge designed to cope with the extremes of Scottish weather. [Interruption.] It is not always shut, and I want to take this head on. The previous Forth bridge was far more subject to the weather and to diversions, and the UK Government did absolutely heehaw about it. The Scottish Government built a bridge; it is a good bridge—it is a brilliant bridge—and the hon. Gentleman loves it so much that he stands in front of it and lets the cars drive through his ears on the telly.
There is also the Kessock bridge, and the £90 million of projects in the Outer Hebrides over the past 25 years for ferry terminals, bridges and causeways, the bulk of which came from European Union funds, and which nobody on the Conservative Benches would ever have thought to fund. By contrast, the UK Government built that bridge over troubled waters, the Skye bridge, and it cost the then Scottish Executive more to buy out the private finance initiative contract than the actual cost of the bridge. And now they want to chuck money at a £20 billion bridge over the Irish sea. I have with me my second-year high school geography project, which might give the Tories an idea as to why disturbing the second world war munitions dump at Beaufort’s dyke might be problematic.
The shared prosperity fund has been described as “a direct attack” on devolution by the Labour-run Welsh Government. This cannot be dismissed as grievance politics or anything remotely like it; it is a real erosion of the hard-won rights of all those in the devolved nations of the UK. Be under no illusion: it is a power grab by the Tories, who never wanted devolution in the first place. The Prime Minister has gone as far as to call it a disaster and Tony Blair’s worst mistake—I am sure we can think of other mistakes, but I will leave that for the Minister.
I am much more confident now than ever before that the people of Scotland see through the lies and spin of this Tory Government. Brexit has been a wake-up call for so many, and I welcome them all to Scotland’s cause. We need policies which meet Scotland’s needs, not an insular little Britain driven by the whims of the Tories and their crony pals. Alasdair Gray argued that a truly independent Scotland will only ever exist when people in every home, school, croft, farm, workshop, factory, island, glen, town and city feel that they, too, are at the centre of the world. This is what we seek. An increasing number of people are seeing their role in that world, and looking forward to the day when they decide to take their future into their own hands, and to take our place in the world and Scotland’s place as part of the European family of nations. I cannae wait.
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to end and add
“welcomes the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement, and recognises the enormous opportunities for Scotland’s economy.”.
Forty-eight years ago, the UK joined the European Economic Community, a concept built by giants. Its founding vision was based on peace and economic prosperity and much good came of it—economic, social and political—but over the years it evolved into something altogether different. Those who campaigned for Brexit did not do so because they objected to the benefits of being in the EU—the free flow of goods, shared security co-operation, ease of travel or reciprocal benefits. What they objected to was the price of those things.
Some objected that the situation prevented developing deeper co-operation with other nations, or that it supported protectionism that held developing nations back, or that it facilitated misery and suffering for refugees and economics, or that it undermined NATO, or frustrated our service economy. Some resented our inability to control our own laws, our own immigration policies or further border controls. Some were concerned about being tied to the eurozone in any way or to the European Court, others about the immense costs of membership and the lack of accountability, political and fiscal. Some wanted us to have our own fishing, agriculture and environment policy, and to realise our ambitions to promote trade for a prosperous and peaceful world.
The negotiations that preceded us leaving the EU and in the run-up to the transition period ending were complex, but our aims can be summarised in three sentences. We wanted to keep the good bits. We wanted to lose the bad bits. We wanted to maximise the possible opportunities for every part of the UK. The post-negotiation scorecard shows that we did well. Under the deal reached with the EU, people in Scotland, as well as all UK nationals, will be able to benefit from a wide range of social security rights when travelling, working and living in the EU, including access to an uprated state pension and to reciprocal healthcare arrangements.
Alan Brown
Has the right hon. Lady asked the fishermen and the seafood industry how they would mark the scorecard? Also, does she think it is acceptable that the Fisheries Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), said she did not read the details of the deal because she was involved in a nativity play at her local school? Surely as Fisheries Minister she should have known exactly what was in that deal?
Penny Mordaunt
If we are talking about scorecards, a policy of handing back coastal waters to Scottish fishermen will win every time over handing back their new quotas to the EU. I am very happy to be judged on that basis.
The trade and co-operation agreement allows the UK to take full advantage of the opportunities available to us as an independent trading nation and strike trade deals with other partners around the world. We have started to use those new-found freedoms. We now have a points-based immigration system, which is open to the whole world and the talent that is out there, and can be tailored to our needs. Following the comments from the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), I hope she will be supporting the Home Secretary’s initiative to establish safe routes for refugees fleeing conflict areas, rather than them having to rely on people traffickers.
The Agriculture Act 2020, which replaces the EU’s bureaucratic common agricultural policy, transforms how we support farmers. The Fisheries Act 2020 enables us to control who fishes in our waters. We have launched our new global human rights sanctions regime. There is the UK-Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement, and we are replacing overly bureaucratic EU structural funds with the new UK shared prosperity fund.
Brexit was an event, but now there is a process. From outside the EU, we can develop, refine and build our relationship with the EU and its member states for the benefit of all our citizens. The noble Lord Frost and I, and all members of the Government, will be working day and night to address the remaining and future issues for businesses, and to listen to their needs and ambitions. We take those issues incredibly seriously. We will resolve the problems, some of which the hon. Lady touched on.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Was the Minister as amazed as I was by a complete absence from the rhetoric of the Scottish National party? It has been calling for the same special arrangements for Scotland that Northern Ireland has, but now that we have seen what the protocol actually means, no one actually wants it. May I encourage the Minister and Lord Frost to continue to push back on the protocol and repair the damage that has been done by it?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman has my assurances that we will continue discussions within the framework of the joint agreement. He knows that there is tremendous concern about and focus on those issues. But no, I was not surprised by some of the things that were missing from the Scottish National party’s opening remarks. I was not surprised that there was no offer to help the efforts to resolve these issues for business. Businesses in Scotland want their representatives to do that. They do not want political grandstanding about another referendum. They want the Scottish Government to focus on improving the situation and not to be distracted by scandal.
Alison Thewliss
The right hon. Member is talking about asking the Scottish Government to help out in some way. The Scottish Government have put forward their proposals on many occasions, including “Scotland’s Place in Europe” and proposals on many other aspects of Brexit, but they have been roundly ignored on every single occasion. It is for the UK Government to take on the Scottish Government’s offers of help and assistance, rather than to shut the door in our face on every single occasion.
Penny Mordaunt
That is not the case. We have done a huge amount. I have been part of that engagement with Scottish Government Ministers and officials. It would be nice if Scottish National party Members would start talking up the opportunities for their businesses, goods and services, because there are many—from financial services to manufacturing to world-renowned Scottish products—that will remain protected in the EU through geographical indicators, as they were before the end of the transition period. The trade and co-operation agreement is only one of many agreements as the UK enters the global stage as a sovereign trading nation. We have already struck deals with countries including Canada, Japan and Singapore, with many more to come, and we will grow our GDP and increase our trade with the rest of the world, creating new opportunities for exporters, and delivering better choice and value for money for our consumers.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
I thank the Minister, who is my county neighbour, for giving way. While she is extolling the virtues of the deal that is being delivered by this Government, does she agree there is a seeming inconsistency from SNP Members—that is, having voted against the deal at every stage during its the passage in this place, they would have ensured a no-deal exit from the European Union, which would have made more disruption for Scottish people?
Penny Mordaunt
That goes to the heart of it. I do not think that Scottish National party Members are interested in practical benefits for the people they represent. What they are interested in is causing division and chaos.
Let me turn briefly to the fishing sector. I have already spoken about securing the uplift in quota for Scotland. We also recognise the critical role that the Scottish fleet plays. It is for that reason that we have secured £14 million in the spending review to support Scotland’s domestic fishery priorities; that is in addition to the £100 million, and goes way beyond our manifesto commitment to maintain funding. This investment will modernise and rejuvenate the industry, and strengthen the long-term sustainability of the catching and processing sectors.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central also mentioned Erasmus. We changed our negotiating position at the start to incorporate the asks of the devolved Administrations regarding Erasmus, and we fought very hard to get a good deal from the EU, but that was not on offer. Instead, we have developed the Turing scheme, which will benefit more students and students from a wider variety of backgrounds than previously enjoyed the Erasmus programme.
An SNP Opposition day debate does not happen every day, so the topic chosen and the content of the speeches tell us much about the focus of a particular political party. There is a clear theme to both debates today, and, alas, it has been a predictable one: to unpick democratic votes, and to ignore and undermine referendums. Nothing about business results; everything about overturning results. I look forward to seeing whether SNP speakers this afternoon offer one practical suggestion to any of the unresolved issues affecting businesses, or offer any help to persuade the EU of initiatives that will benefit all parties. The SNP, through its fanaticism and now its emerging conduct, is losing the fragments of credibility that it once may have held. Today, we have again seen its Members’ contempt for democracy.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I think the Minister is doing the SNP a disservice. Do the Government not owe it a debt of gratitude for enabling the premature election that resulted in their 80-seat majority and Brexit happening in the first place?
Penny Mordaunt
There was, I am sure, an electoral dividend, as the citizens of the United Kingdom were fed up and wanted to get Brexit done, but I wish we had not had to go through quite the gymnastics that we have over the last few years.
The SNP’s relentless mission to stir up hatred, division and mistrust—
Penny Mordaunt
I refer the hon. Lady to her opening remarks. I think the Scottish people deserve better than that. The real political heroes of the last few turbulent years, to which the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) referred, were not those who won referendums; they were those who lost referendums and adhered to the results. They were those who voted for an independent Scotland and accepted the result of that once-in-a-generation vote, and those who voted to remain in the EU but accepted the mandate to leave.
That faith in democracy, that respect for their fellow citizens, is the ultimate expression of mutuality—equality— in which we all share. It can be found in our NHS, in the vaccine programme, in our welfare safety nets, in every charity and voluntary organisation across the land, and in every gesture of good will and kindness towards a neighbour, including neighbours across borders. These deeply felt connections, responsibilities and care we have towards each other are at the heart of the Scottish nation, and they are at the heart of every nation—the four nations—of this United Kingdom. They are what makes those nations and our country great, and the SNP’s selfish, self-absorbed separatist rhetoric will never destroy that.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call Ian Murray, I will just point out that we will start with Back-Bench contributions of four minutes. I have no doubt whatsoever that that will move down to three minutes later in the debate so that more Members can get in. If you are participating remotely, please keep an eye on the clock that should be on the bottom right-hand side of the device that you are using. Please do not exceed the time limit, because you will be stopped by the Chair. For those participating in the Chamber, the time limit will be shown in the usual fashion.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
May I start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who set out the severe impacts that this Brexit proposition is having on the Scottish economy? It is a shame; the title of the debate is “Leaving the EU: Impact on the UK”, but I think we will need more than one debate to go through all the impacts. She ran very quickly through a lot of the impacts that are affecting Scottish business.
May I take Members back to Christmas eve? I am sure we can all just about remember that. We were all turning our attention to our family Christmas traditions. We were putting on our Christmas jumpers, double-checking we had everything for Christmas day, cutting sellotape with our teeth, examining the TV guide to see when we could watch “It’s a Wonderful Life”, and perhaps even thinking about a small libation or two. I am sure our thoughts would have been turning to family and friends who were unable to celebrate Christmas with us due to the lockdown. Then, out of the mulled wine haze appears not Santa Claus but the Prime Minister, sitting in front of the Downing Street Christmas tree delivering an “all I want for Christmas is as an EU trade deal” address to the nation.
The Prime Minister gleefully proclaimed that the UK and the EU had come to a last-minute trade and co-operation agreement, there would be no tariffs on goods, the Northern Ireland protocol would be maintained so the Government would not break international law, and, rather surprisingly,
“there will be no non-tariff barriers”.
I hope Santa was listening very clearly, as he really should not be delivering gifts to those who do not tell the truth. Going all the way back to the day after the EU referendum, it was always going to be the case that the cold reality of Brexit would one day disinfect all those undeliverable Tory promises given to the British people at the time and since, and that is exactly what has happened.
The bare-bones Brexit deal that was so lauded by the Prime Minister falls way short of what was promised and what was needed. It is not “get Brexit done”, as the Minister said; it is “get done by Brexit”. With our country facing one of the biggest economic recessions of any developed nation and with our businesses under increasing strain from the pandemic, they have to try to navigate new trading rules with the UK’s largest trading partner that have reduced exporting output by 60%. What will happen when the EU economies start to reopen fully? That is when the deal will truly be tested. It is holding back British businesses with reams of new red tape and unnecessary bureaucracy. Businesses were promised no non-tariff barriers, but the Government’s lack of leadership and clarity and their constant dither and delay mean that businesses are facing challenges that they certainly were not prepared for.
It did not have to be this way. The Government, instead of sticking their head in the sand, could have worked with industry to get ready. They could have focused on practical action to support businesses—measures such as recruiting and training the promised 50,000-plus customs agents we knew were needed to get the checks done. They could have used the transition period for what it was designed for—transitioning to the new arrangements. Instead, they wasted that period on negotiating the deal.
The Government think that the deal they got on Christmas eve is the end of the matter, but sectors of the economy know that this is just the beginning of huge difficulties and challenges, and for some it is unfortunately the beginning of the end for their business. It is certainly the beginning of the end for many that export, none more so than the Scottish fishing industry. That the Brexit deal is neither what Scotland’s fishing sector needed nor what it was promised will not surprise anyone. The devastating delays that the sector is facing were entirely predictable. There is anger and frustration from our fishers, who have been very badly let down. Elspeth Macdonald, the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation chief executive—I am glad I was not drinking at lunch time, Mr Deputy Speaker; that was my impression of Sean Connery as well—was scathing:
“This deal falls very far short of the commitments and promises that were made to the fishing industry by those at the highest level of government.”
It is a pattern, isn’t it?
What about Scottish agriculture? There has been nothing positive for farmers in leaving the EU with this deal. They are happy that no deal was avoided, but where are the sunny uplands they were promised? They, too, see something familiar. The Prime Minister is getting a reputation not just for overpromising and underdelivering, but for overpromising and then delivering nothing.
Douglas Ross
I am grateful to Ian Murray for giving way, because I just had to check—
Douglas Ross
I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland for giving way. He has spoken a lot about the deal—the deal that he voted for in this House in December—but his new Scottish party leader in Holyrood voted against it. Who is right—the leader of Scottish Labour or the Labour shadow Secretary of State?
Ian Murray
That was a boring and predictable intervention. The hon. Gentleman knows that we voted for the deal to avoid the very no-deal that his Government were threatening. He also knows—he is just about to rejoin the Scottish Parliament, assuming he wins his seat, and I hope he gets the rules in train before he does so—that that is not what the debate was about in the Scottish Parliament. It was about something completely different, not whether Members there accepted or did not accept the deal. The hon. Gentleman knows that not to be the case. [Interruption.] Rather than chuntering, it would be much better for the hon. Gentleman to give some reassurance to the fishing industry and the Scottish farming industry. This is what they are saying to us. It is what they are putting on the record. I am not making this up. It might be a good starting point to give them some reassurance and to work together to resolve some of the problems.
The trade deal leaves a huge amount of uncertainty and falls short of what is needed and what was promised. Scottish farmers are clear that they will not stand by and see a weakening of import standards for food and allow Scottish and British produce to be undercut by others. We need concrete guarantees that food and farming standards will remain at least as high as they are now.
What about services? The financial services sector in Scotland maintains 162,000 jobs and accounts for nearly 10% of GDP. Across the UK, the financial services sector contributed £75.6 billion to the Treasury in the year before covid. There is nothing in the agreement for the 80% of our economy that supports millions of jobs and livelihoods. I hope the Minister can tell us that the EU-UK memorandum of understanding with the financial services sector that is due to be signed by the end of March will give the sector what it was promised. The Government need to secure long-term agreement with the EU on financial services equivalence and to improve access to EU markets for the wider professional services industry, so that the UK and Scotland can remain global hubs for financial services.
I have mentioned just three sectors—the hon. Member for Glasgow Central mentioned others—that have been disadvantaged by this deal, but we could have talked about so many others, including chemicals, petrochemicals and energy. The list is endless. No wonder there is frustration, as it transpires that deals could have been done that would have made things easier for people. We could have stayed in the Erasmus programme. While I welcome aspects of the new Turing scheme, the Government could have done both. That would have been a truly global Britain—stay in Erasmus+ and do the Turing scheme for non-EU countries.
We could have had a deal for our performers and production tours—it was on offer, but it was turned down. Why? Government policy seems to be to cut off our nose to spite our face. I hope that a solution can be found, or it will be more damage to another jewel in the UK’s crown—our creative industries. Those issues do not need Government platitudes. We want not more promises to be broken, but action and resolution now. The Brexit reality includes everything from shellfish rotting on a motorway to stopping our musicians touring Europe. The sunny uplands that we were promised mean a 4% hit to GDP—the equivalent of £3,600 for every household in the UK, according to the House of Commons Library. It is a shame that we do not have time to deal with the Northern Ireland protocol and the effects on the Good Friday agreement.
It is worth coming on to the SNP’s approach to the EU, as the party has initiated this debate in the Chamber. We have heard time and again, in the Chamber and elsewhere, that the UK has left the EU so Scotland needs to leave the UK. The former Labour MP and Europe Minister, Douglas Alexander, said this week in an article in The New European:
“Independence for Scotland would represent a reckless ‘hold my beer’ response to Brexit”.
All of us who campaigned to stay in the EU and strained every sinew to ensure that the case was made are disappointed. Of course we are angry. Many are still grieving after leaving the EU, but if the response is ripping Scotland out of the UK that would add catastrophically to that position.
The UK has left its largest trading partner, the EU. Of course that is bad, and we will hear that throughout the debate. Scotland leaving its largest trading partner, the UK, would be immeasurably worse. We need a remedy for Brexit, not a hugely damaging “I told you so” moment from Scotland. I did not vote remain for my vote to be misappropriated—
Alan Brown
We hear a lot about the fact that England is our biggest trading partner—that is true—but does the hon. Gentleman accept that 62% of goods manufactured in Scotland go to the EU, so it is our biggest trader in manufactured goods?
Ian Murray
The London School of Economics report—the LSE used to be lauded by the First Minister—said that Scottish independence would be three times worse than Brexit. Everything that the hon. Member for Glasgow Central said has to be multiplied by at least three. Then we can see the impact of what would happen—[Interruption.] Here we go again. I am trying to shine light on the facts of what would happen. I am trying to shine light from the LSE, an organisation that used to be lauded and cited in the Chamber every single day by Scottish National party Members, and all we get is, “Are we better together?” We need answers to those questions. That is what people are crying out for—they want people to be honest and answer those questions.
I did not vote in the EU referendum for my vote to be misappropriated by the nationalists to break up the UK. It is not their vote to do that with. I wonder whether the no-deal SNP regrets spending less on the EU referendum than it did chasing a few thousand votes in its failed bid to win the Scottish parliamentary by-election for Shetland.
The most extraordinary aspect of the debate in Scotland is the SNP’s promising a seamless transition back into the EU if the public vote for a separated Scotland. That is another in a long line of assertions that are not based on fact and not backed by any satisfactory answers. Indeed, we heard the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) ask the SNP’s finance spokesperson what the currency would be. There was no answer. Can the House imagine the shadow Chancellor or the Chancellor standing at the Dispatch Box unable to tell the country what its currency would be? They would be laughed out of the Chamber. They would have to resign before they reached the Speaker’s Chair.
One thing is for sure: Brexit shows us that breaking up is incredibly hard to do, and I am disappointed again that the SNP has introduced a debate on the EU but not taken any time at all to set out how, why or whether it can get a hypothetically independent Scotland back into the EU. Perhaps it will answer some key questions, as its separation strategy seems to be very similar to the strategy of Nigel Farage and the Brexiteers. It wants to cherry-pick the best bits of the EU, but not take the bits that it knows the public would find unpalatable.
The SNP’s proposition is that Scotland would seamlessly rejoin the EU as an independent nation, but not take the euro, or sign up to Schengen, or meet the deficit and debt requirements, or have its own currency, or meet the exchange rate mechanism rules, or re-enter the common fisheries policy. The sterlingisation plan excludes it from entering the exchange rate mechanism.
Most astonishingly, the Scottish Health Secretary said on “Question Time” last month that Scotland would not need to sign up to the very trade and co-operation agreement that we are debating today between the EU and the UK, which I and the SNP are rallying against in this debate. How is that even possible? Scotland would become an independent nation and would seamlessly go back into the European Union, and then would not even have to implement at the border at Berwick the trade and co-operation agreement that was signed between the UK and the EU? That is just implausible.
We know that the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK, in the hypothetical event that Scotland was ripped out of the UK, would be determined by the very trade and co-operation agreement that was signed on Christmas eve by the Prime Minister. All the problems that are being faced by Scottish industries such as fishing, manufacturing, agriculture, exports and financial services that we might hear about this evening would increase fivefold or more, as the rest of the UK is far and away the largest market for Scottish goods and services. This just does not make sense, and it is about time the SNP faced up to those key questions and was straight with the Scottish public. That is all I ask: be straight with the Scottish public and answer the questions.
Scotland has two Governments making promises to the Scottish people that they cannot deliver, and making promises to the people and businesses of Scotland that they have no intention of delivering. The problem is that the UK Government see the relationship achieved with the limited last-minute deal between the UK and the EU as the ceiling of their ambition—we heard that tonight from the Minister—but we do not. We see it as being the floor from which to build. We need to work hand in hand with industry, business, our trade unions and our European partners and friends to achieve practical solutions so that we can face the challenges thrown up by this deal with the EU and grab those future opportunities.
This deal must be built on; it must be the start, not the end. We have to live in the reality, and while we would not have taken us to this position, that is where we are. The deal has to be about a deeper, mutually beneficial relationship that means businesses can thrive. That means repairing the tattered relationship with our EU partners. It means putting aside the ideological nationalist agenda from both Governments and working in the national interest. Now more than ever, we need what the Scottish public are crying out for, which is both Governments, Scottish and UK, working together to mitigate aspects and disadvantages of covid and Brexit, but I fear that I should not hold my breath.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I listened very carefully to the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). What I find quite extraordinary about the SNP is its ability to hold to two completely incompatible and inconsistent policies at the same time. We recently concluded the SNP’s first debate of this afternoon, in which it argued that Scotland should be separate from the rest of the United Kingdom. It has now introduced a debate to complain about the economic impact of the UK leaving the European Union. A total of 60% of Scotland’s trade is with the rest of the UK, worth more than £50 billion, against £16.6 billion in exports to the EU, yet the SNP wants to rip Scotland out of that United Kingdom economic union. More than half a million Scottish jobs are linked to trade with the rest of the United Kingdom, yet the SNP continues to obsess about taking Scotland out of the United Kingdom.
It is not surprising that so many people are baffled when, on the one hand, the nationalists argue for Scotland’s separation from that political and economic union, yet, on the other, they want even closer ties with another political and economic union—separation from the UK, but yet closer ties to Brussels and the EU.
I do not need to remind the House that the SNP tried to impose an economic shock on Scotland by recklessly voting for a no-deal Brexit at the end of the transition period with the EU. The EU-UK trade deal is worth £653 per person over a no-deal Brexit, according to the Scottish Government’s own analysis, yet SNP MPs trooped into the Lobby to vote for a no-deal Brexit. They voted for a no-deal Brexit and all the economic challenges that that would undoubtedly have brought. They voted for a no-deal Brexit in spite of the financial hardship that would bring to families in Scotland. They also voted for a no-deal Brexit despite the Federation of Small Businesses, the Confederation of British Industry, the British Chambers of Commerce, the National Farmers Union of Scotland, the National Sheep Association and many other organisations, as well as our constituents, urging MPs in Parliament to back the UK-EU trade deal. So it is a bit rich to hear them squealing today about the impact of Brexit when they voted for a no-deal Brexit.
We should not be surprised that SNP Members voted against the UK-EU trade deal or that they supported a no-deal Brexit. In fact, they have a track record of voting against trade deals, even those from which we benefited as members of the European Union, some of which this Government have rolled over for the benefit of the UK and Scotland. SNP Members complain about our exit from the EU, yet they failed to support or abstain on countless trade deals that we have secured. They voted against trade deals with Canada, South Africa and Korea and abstained on trade deals with Japan and Singapore. I would welcome an intervention from one of the SNP Members here today to tell us which single trade deal the SNP has supported in the past 15 years. No? Nothing. They are not favour of trade or of jobs; they are not in favour of all the families and people we represent who are dependent on trade in Scotland. They are against trade and against the jobs that are supported by trade—[Interruption.] I will be happy to take an intervention from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) if he wishes to tell me which trade deal he supports. No? I didn’t think so.
We are already witnessing the profound economic benefits that Scottish industry is having from our new international trading relationships, and I very much welcome that. It is clear that SNP Members are not in favour of independence; they want closer ties with Brussels. They want to take Scottish fishermen back into the hated fisheries policy and to take farmers back into the common agricultural policy. They do not want independence; they just want closer ties with Brussels.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) [V]
Happy St Patrick’s day, Mr Deputy Speaker. Latha Fhèill Pàdraig sona dhut. That completes the triple crown of senior languages of these islands here today. I believe that Welsh and Irish Gaelic have already been used. I just thought I would make that remark, given that St Patrick, celebrated and publicised by Ireland around the world, is the world’s most famous Scotsman. I note that today was a day when the House of Commons celebrated independent Ireland at the same time as it decried the chance for Scotland to be independent. I have to wonder what it is about the people who go to the House of Commons and respect independent countries while talking down the countries that remain in the UK. There might be a lesson for Scotland in that.
These two debates today, on independence and Brexit, work hand in hand. They are perhaps either side of the same coin, and it is important that they should both be looked at and discussed. It is good that we have this second one on Brexit, which more of us can participate in than managed to get into the oversubscribed earlier debate, such is the keenness to talk about independence—particularly, I noted, among Tory MPs. Perhaps that is a sign of things to come. There will be a lot more talk on independence as time goes on.
I want to reflect on what is really happening with Brexit. I noted the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) condemning the idea of independence at this moment. Independence at this moment would, of course, be the escape from the Brexit that he foisted on us in the middle of a pandemic—a pandemic that he used as a pretext for not launching the lifeboat in Scotland, which is something that we need to do with great urgency. It would be far better being in the club of 28 equal nations than being talked down to at Westminster in the way we were today, but such is life. I say to the hon. Member for Moray: let the people choose, and if his party wins the election in May, we will accept that the Scottish people do not want independence, but if we win the election in May, I hope he will have the democratic grace to realise that, with an SNP victory, that is exactly what the people have in mind.
We know where we are at the moment. We have no new trade deals adding to GDP, and we have a Brexit that is going to take away 4.9% of UK GDP over the next 10 years. The trade deals that have been signed are merely roll-over trade deals. On this St Patrick’s day, it is interesting to look at where Ireland was at one time. In 1940, 90% of Irish trade went to the UK. Now, 11% of Irish trade goes to the UK. It has not that Ireland has stopped trading with the UK; it is just that it has discovered the rest of the world, through independence and through being part of the European Union. In fact, there are more jobs in the UK dependent on Ireland than ever there were when Ireland was part of the UK. That goes to show not only the benefits that independence have brought to Ireland, but those it is bringing to people in the UK who are finding that their own jobs and prosperity are dependent on a successful neighbour next door. When we make Scotland independent and as successful as Ireland, there will be even more jobs in England dependent on that success of Scotland, so it will be a win-win situation. Ireland’s GDP was once 80% of the UK’s, and now it is 172% of the UK’s.
In my constituency, we are seeing the problems with Brexit. Salmon going to Austria is getting returned. Shellfish problems are legion, as we all know. From islands, ferries have to leave earlier and the admin costs are going up. Arts organisations such as Ceòlas in Uist, which had European structural funds, are unsure if they are going to get UK prosperity funds. The reality is that there are difficulties every step of the way.
In truth, Scotland, in the referendum of 2014, said that we will stay in the UK if it is in the EU—that was supported by 55%—but in 2016, 62% of Scotland went for the EU alone. The EU is more popular than the UK. Let us have our next say, and let Scotland decide which way it is going.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Happy St Patrick’s Day to you, Angus, and I know where we would have been celebrating later on this evening, had these been normal times, but they are not.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]
I have declared my business interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I welcome the opportunity to debate the many opportunities that Brexit presents. It was always the case that, once we had achieved Brexit, the Government needed to use the freedoms it brings to promote the greater health and prosperity of United Kingdom citizens. We meet today with a success already as a result of these freedoms. The United Kingdom Government decided last year not to join the common vaccine procurement system of the European Union. They went their own way. They had confidence in British science and in British medicine, and they had confidence in great companies based in the United Kingdom and in our great universities.
It is tremendous news that, as a result, the United Kingdom helped pioneer one of the first successful vaccines. The United Kingdom pre-ordered a very large number of vaccines for United Kingdom people on the basis that some of these vaccines would be good and would be available for use, and that put the United Kingdom in the position to vaccinate much earlier, saving more lives than those countries can that were not in the happy position of having early supplies of vaccine. Even our regulators were quicker and more agile. Our regulators gave regulatory approval to the first vaccines some weeks before the European regulator, though the European regulator came to the same view in due course.
I think this is a model for how we can use our freedoms more widely to promote our health and better prosperity. I would draw the Government’s attention to a very important policy initiative from President Biden. They may find it surprising to see me recommending something from a Democrat President, but I think his 24 February Executive order—looking at America’s supply chains, and saying that America can do much better at developing its own technology, putting in its own industrial capacity and creating many better-paid jobs by having more capacity in the United States—is a model we should follow. Indeed, it is the model we have been following with the development of the vaccine, which has led to more good jobs in the United Kingdom and more United Kingdom productive capacity.
The Biden initiative starts with a very rapid—100-day —attempt to fix the need for the United States of America to have a much bigger presence in pharmaceuticals, batteries, rare earths and minerals, and semiconductors. There is then an annual programme, involving all the relevant Departments of Government, of going through the supply chains and asking what can be done to use innovation funding, Government procurement and Government regulation to encourage more onshoring and more exciting technical developments. Of course, a country needs to have strong competition law and not to abuse state aids, but many good things can be done with the massive procurement programmes of the British Government, like those of the American Government, to encourage competitive responses in the United Kingdom and to encourage that increasing capacity.
I hope the Government will do more on both the Northern Ireland border issue, where I think we need to be firm—and I support their recent action—and on the fishing industry, where I think we need more rapid progress to build up our fleet and to take back control of more of our fish. That was the promise and that is clearly the intended journey, but I wish the Government would be firmer, because I do not think that at the moment we have the right deal to promote that industry. If we wish to develop our green policies, as we do, we need to do more at home, cut the food miles, cut the fish miles and have more value added in the United Kingdom.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Happy St Patrick’s Day, Mr Deputy Speaker.
My Irish surname is from ancestors who arrived from Ireland in Bellshill in Scotland before only later moving to England. That is not just a tenuous way of explaining why, as a central London MP, I am joining today’s debate. I am joining it because I share a lot of the anger over Brexit. I voted with SNP Members so many times to oppose it, including against triggering article 50. I share concerns about Brexit and how we got here. My constituents, like Scotland, voted massively to remain and rejected the atrocious lies of Dominic Cummings’ campaign in 2016, like saying it would be “the easiest deal in human history”, now so brutally exposed for exporters and importers alike, despite the Minister’s claims about opportunities opening up. All those lies included the £350 million a week extra for the NHS when nurses have been slapped in the face and given a pay cut after their heroic efforts against covid.
But those who attack the dishonesty in campaigns by prominent Conservatives should also reflect on the fact that the last referendum campaign in Scotland was based on the dishonesty that staying in the EU was possible. The irony is that the SNP could have taken Scotland out of the EU before the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) and others were having wet dreams about the whole of the UK leaving. Let us not double down on that previous deceit or pretend that independence is the solution to today’s problems. My constituents in Bermondsey face the same problems today as those in Bellshill. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs admits that businesses face £7.5 billion in extra costs this year because of the Government’s pitiful trade deal—a deal that has already led to an export slump of £5.6 billion. I am seeing two more businesses from my constituency affected this week—Selfmade Candle and Gisela Graham Ltd, who just this year have already seen new costs of 20 grand between them as a result of this deal. What will not help them, though, is what the SNP offers, because they know that the answer to Brexit and the devastation of trade barriers with the EU is not the further devastation of Scexit and more barriers for people and businesses within the UK.
I share the SNP’s concern at the petty nationalism that has taken over the Tory party, cannibalised by UKIP, and I share everyone’s concern that Tories have become scared of their own members—scared to the extent that they are no longer a genuinely Unionist party, and no longer working in the UK national or security interest, as this horrendous deal has exposed. But I do not know how the SNP has reached the idea that the solution to all those problems is to be more like Dominic Cummings and more like the Tory party. The solution to division is not more division. The solution to toxic nationalism is not more toxic nationalism. The solution to economic destruction is not more damage, job losses and heartache. Our shared solution to this petty, populist, Trumpesque Tory party is not to enable it or ape it—it is to beat it, together, with our more positive vision of what the UK can be and what our shared values are. I hope we can work on that, stronger and better together, going forward in the interests of all the people across the United Kingdom to fix the damage that this Government’s downgraded betrayal of a deal has done to our international standing, to our security, to our economy and to people’s opportunities.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
I would like to make an offer to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), because in my intervention on her she said that I was not interested in the SNP’s currency plans. Well, I am interested, and the people of Scotland are interested, so I am willing to give up all of my time for the hon. Lady, the SNP’s self-declared shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, to stand up and explain to me, and explain to the people of Scotland, in simple terms, what the SNP’s currency would be in an independent Scotland. I give up the remainder of my time to the hon. Lady. [Interruption.] I cannot believe that the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer for the SNP will not take an opportunity to tell this House this—to tell the people of Scotland what independence would mean for them, just in terms of their currency. That is all I am asking for, but in two debates today, with multiple opportunities, the SNP has refused to tell us. It wants people in Scotland to vote for independence but will not tell them what that will mean. That is unacceptable.
My disappointment was only reinforced when I did as you asked me to, Mr Deputy Speaker, and looked at the voting records from the earlier Divisions that we had. It has now been confirmed by Parliament—by the Vote Office—that every single SNP MP today voted to say that they do not agree that
“the priority of the Scottish people is to recover from the effects of the covid-19 pandemic, and that it would be irresponsible to hold a referendum at this time.”
That is all that SNP MPs were asked to support, but every single one, all 47 of them, and the one independent suspended SNP Member, voted against that. I hope they go back to their constituencies in Scotland and explain to the people they are supposed to represent and to the whole of Scotland, on behalf of their party, why they do not think that our priority during this pandemic should be recovery rather than another irresponsible referendum.
Douglas Ross
I am not sure whether this is on the vote or on a future currency for an independent Scotland, but I will give way to the hon. Lady.
Alison Thewliss
Can the hon. Gentleman explain to me what “at this time” means? Nobody is proposing that we hold an independence referendum at half-past 5 on a Wednesday night.
Douglas Ross
The SNP has allocated £600,000 to hold a referendum and campaign for one this year. The hon. Lady’s leader in this place, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), has said that the referendum should be in 2021. In the earlier debate, the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) said it will happen in the next 12 months—whether it is in December or January of next year, it will be within a year. While we are still struggling to fight this pandemic, while we are still seeing lives lost and livelihoods on the line, the SNP priority is, as always, separation. That is their mandate and all they are interested in.
We also have had no comment from the SNP today, in a debate about Brexit and the EU, on the EU’s roll-out of the vaccination programme and how we in Scotland have benefited from decisions taken by the UK Government, led by the Prime Minister, to procure and develop vaccines right at the start of the pandemic. These vaccines are protecting people in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. How does our vaccine roll-out in this country compare with that in the rest of the EU, which the hon. Lady would like to take us straight back into?
The hon. Lady also spoke about all the great infrastructure that has been built and developed in Scotland during the SNP terms in office. I tried to intervene on that point, because I would be interested to know what she thinks of the actions of one of her party colleagues, an SNP Cabinet Minister in the Scottish Government, Fergus Ewing, writing to his own Government asking their Transport Secretary to give his constituency some good news ahead of purdah—ahead of the period in which the Scottish Government are not allowed to make any further announcements. SNP MPs know that their 14 years are coming back to haunt them: their inability to get ferries into the water and to get hospitals open to take patients. It has been a litany of failure over the past 14 years and it has come to the extent that SNP Ministers have to ask their own Government to try to sneak out some more information because they have let down so many communities.
Penny Mordaunt
I would just like to update the House by saying that the success of the vaccine programme in Scotland has meant that a third of the eligible population have been vaccinated, whereas the figure in France is just under 8%.
Douglas Ross
The Minister outlines the figures excellently. I know that my own parents have benefited—they have been vaccinated in the Fiona Elcock centre in Elgin. People across Moray and across Scotland have benefited because of the vaccine roll-out in the UK and in Scotland. I want to reiterate that the two debates from the SNP today have been all about division and arguments about the past, with no positive vision for the future. The Scottish Conservatives are determined over the next seven weeks that we focus on Scotland’s recovery and on building back better than before this pandemic struck. We will be supporting jobs and livelihoods and communities right across Scotland. The SNP just want more division and I think that people across Scotland are beginning to realise that after 14 years of failure we can do so much better than that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I would like to try to get as many people in as possible, so after the next speaker I will take the time limit down to three minutes.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
It is a genuine privilege to follow the contribution from the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), because I believe that in the six minutes or so he spoke for he did not once mention Brexit, nor did he once recognise the difficulties caused by Brexit. We can conclude only that the Tories do not care about the damage that Brexit has caused.
Let me start by asking: what do we know about Brexit? It was ill conceived and poorly executed, it was an act of political panic and it has turned into an act of economic self-harm. It was driven by a sense of jingoistic exceptionalism that was never going to stand any scrutiny, and all the rhetoric of bright sunlit uplands has wilted under the reality of the problems—all foreseen—that have subsequently emerged.
It was reported in February that Scotland’s salmon farmers had incurred losses of £11 million as a direct result of Brexit—unmentioned by the hon. Member for Moray. On 12 March, it was reported that fish and shellfish exports were down 83%—unremarked by the hon. Member. On the same day, the Food and Drink Federation found that food and animal exports from the UK to the EU had fallen by 63% in January, which is clearly an important matter in the hon. Member’s constituency—unremarked in a debate about Brexit, but then we should not be surprised. The UK Fashion and Textile Association said that it is
“cheaper for retailers to write off the cost of the goods than dealing with it all, either abandoning or potentially burning them.”
Research from Make UK showed that 74% of the 200 major industrial firms it surveyed were facing delays with EU imports and exports, and 24 of the largest City of London firms have moved or plan to move assets worth an estimated £1.3 trillion out of the UK due to Brexit. That barely scrapes the surface of the problems.
It is not as if the Tories were not warned. Every pre-referendum economic forecast—certainly the serious ones—predicted a loss of GDP in the minus 2% to minus 7% range. The Treasury said that a free trade agreement could see a loss of GDP growth of around 6.2%, and that was not even the worst of its estimates at that time. In 2018, the cross-Whitehall analysis said that GDP could be 7.7% lower in 15 years under a smooth WTO mitigated arrangement. The one thing we can say about the deal we have with the European Union is that it certainly is not smooth—even the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has belatedly conceded that. Finally, the UK Government’s November 2018 long-term economic assessment suggested a GDP fall of 4.9% on a modelled FTA, which worsened to a 6.7% fall, with net zero inflows of European economic area workers, which, of course, for many Tory Brexiteers was all this was really ever about.
The question is, how do we proceed? We should back the motion because, self-evidently, we should regret the damage Brexit has done and that Brexit ever happened at all, but we need to move forward and work out how to improve this situation. Time is too limited for me to give any prognosis in the next 12 seconds, but in short, it is time for the Government to stop the pretence that we have an “excellent deal”, fully recognise the scale of the problems, show some humility and start to fix them.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
If the Opposition had been correct about Brexit, the sky would have fallen in by now and dementors sporting EU flags would be swooping around our heads. If we had listened to Opposition Members of all political colours, we would currently be stuck in a perpetual cycle of referendums, while they ignore the results until they get one that suits them. I never expected the EU-UK divorce to be easy after 40 years; a long career in family law taught me that. I have a word of caution for our Scottish friends in the House: if they think this is tough, can they imagine what it will be like if they destroy a 300-year relationship? Scotland voted no, and we are better together.
We have seen how agile the UK can be outside the EU with the successful vaccine programme. While the EU politics and sows doubt about the Oxford vaccine, knowing full well that this could cause deaths, we are arranging vaccines for people in their 50s. Sadly, through family connections, I know that some people in their 70s in Europe are still waiting for their vaccination. We all benefit from the world being safe from this awful virus, so I hope the European Commission will urgently stop being daft and dangerous with people’s health.
I turn back to the Opposition in front of me. I cannot stand the anti-UK rhetoric. The sky has not fallen in, and we delivered the Brexit deal as promised. There have been immediate positives in connection with the most crucial thing that we needed for this country right now: the vaccine. But there are undoubtedly problems that need to be resolved. I have been writing to Government on behalf of my constituents and I really want to see us taking a lead on proposals to fix issues arising since the end of transition period. Lord Frost continuing to be in charge of the ongoing decisions with the EU is a good thing. It provides consistency and he knows exactly who said what and who offered what.
In my view, the “who said what” and blame game needs to stop in relation to the issues regarding musicians’ and entertainers’ visas. Stroud is a really creative place packed with artists of all types. I have received a number of emails about the impact and the loss of income and creative opportunities. These are incredibly talented men and women who are very much in demand for their skills. I also think about my EU-facing innovators in Stroud. They are self-sufficient self-starters, but those such as The Beeswax Wrap Co., which is based in Nailsworth, have had stunning growth and they are now facing problems with deliveries, demand and confidence that goods will arrive, and the orders are driving up.
I have confidence in this country, I have confidence that these things can be fixed, and I have confidence in Stroud. I wish that Opposition Members felt the same.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
A very happy St Patrick’s Day to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will not say it in Welsh, even though St Patrick was Welsh and was born near to me in Neath Port Talbot in Banwen.
I have a lot of sympathy for this motion, partly because it does not mention independence. It sets out the predictable disaster that Brexit has been, which has been made so much worse by an appalling Tory deal. I am acutely aware of the strange irony of having nationalists against nationalism, both in the case of the SNP, which opposed Brexit, yet want to break up Britain—I suppose that it will be breaking up Scotland next—and that of the Tory nationalists, who wanted to break away from the EU but do not want to break away from Scotland. I am an internationalist and want to see us together as one Union and in closer alignment with the EU.
The simple fact is that the Budget confirms—as the Office for Budget Responsibility said—that the appalling Brexit that has been negotiated will cut our economy by some 4%, which equates to about 1.4 million jobs lost according to the Office for National Statistics. That will cost everybody in this country about £1,300, so it will cost a family of four about £5,000. That is not as much as would be lost by Scottish independence, as confirmed by the London School of Economics, but we are here to talk about Brexit.
The people who voted for Brexit, many of whom I represent, presented good ideas of wanting more jobs, more money and more control. That is what they were promised. There is nothing wrong with wanting those things. The problem is that they did not get them. They were promised an “oven-ready” Brexit, but the oven was turned off during lockdown and the pandemic. The Welsh and Scottish First Ministers both wrote to the Prime Minister in June and September to say, “Why do we not extend the transition period, because we will lose preparedness and negotiation time? And if we are Brexiting, let’s get the best Brexit.” Stupidly, of course—the Welsh First Minister recently said he was “baffled” by this—the Government and the Prime Minister decided that they would go ahead, and look where we have ended up. We have massive reductions in our exports. There will be impairments to our imports from April, so instead, the Prime Minister delivered a half-filled sack on Christmas eve with no services inside, despite the fact that 42% of our exports to the EU are services. We have ended up just saying, “Let’s have more deals under the comprehensive and progressive trans-Pacific partnership”, but the Japanese one is worth £1.6 billion when it would have been worth £2.6 billion through the EU.
In summary, I am a man who wants to see us as four nations, in closer alignment to the EU, and the Government not to hide the problems of Brexit through covid, and, incidentally, not to stop people marching—if they do eventually want to resume membership—through the awful Bill banning protest yesterday. Let’s stay together.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
I am genuinely sorry to make Members sit through two speeches from me today, but I must point out that this is the second Opposition day debate that has continued to highlight the strange contradictions and paradoxical policies of the Scottish National party. We have had a debate in which the SNP extolled the virtues of independence, yet in this debate it is wishing to submit to the whims and diktats of the EU. May I politely remind the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) that she and her party voted against the deal that this Government provided? Without that deal, the Scottish people would have had a no-deal exit, which would have meant even more of the disruption to UK services that she so complains about from the SNP Front Bench.
The SNP extols the virtues of European Union ties, but the SNP and the Labour party were major proponents of the EU vaccine scheme. The Scottish National party’s Constitution Secretary—the very person responsible for devising the arrangements for Scottish separation—was promoting the EU scheme and insisted that the UK’s decision not to join the EU vaccination scheme was an “idiotic refusal”. However, thanks to our vaccine scheme, doses per 100 people are three times higher in Scotland than the European Union average—37.5 doses per 100 people, compared with 11.1 doses per 100 people in the EU. The Scottish Housing Minister called the UK Government “ideological, inept and irresponsible”. In light of these facts and the decisions that this Government took to ensure that the people of Scotland could access lifesaving vaccines, I rather think those comments would be better directed at the party of the hon. Member for Glasgow Central, whose ideological desire to break up the Union would leave Scotland in a much worse position.
I am also alarmed at the impact the SNP position would have on Scotland’s fishermen. For the first time in a generation, our fishermen will have access to our fish, and the proportion will rise from half to two thirds over time.
The economic support provided throughout this pandemic has shown that we are stronger as a Union, and it has helped Scotland enormously. Almost 1 million jobs in Scotland have been protected through the United Kingdom’s furlough scheme.
Without a hint of irony, Scottish National party Members stand up in front of us and try to claim that our departure from the EU will create unprecedented economic damage but that our separating from the Union will suddenly deliver a major economic boom for Scotland. Who are they trying to kid? Our commitment to levelling up was demonstrated in the Budget by the relocation of 1,000 civil service jobs from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Cabinet Office to Glasgow and East Kilbride.
Let us stop misleading the Scottish people. Let us have more Conservative MSPs in Holyrood after the next election, so that we can finally have a Government in Scotland who deliver for the United Kingdom and the Scottish people as a whole.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I am old enough to remember the days when we were told that, post-Brexit, the UK would hold all the cards and the trade deal would be the easiest in human history; that the EU needed the UK more than the UK needed the EU and there was no downside to Brexit, only a considerable upside; and that trade would boom immediately after we left.
The Office for National Statistics told us what actually happened immediately after we left. Exports to the EU were down by more than 40%, the largest monthly fall since records began. Imports were down as well, by just under 29%, mainly in transport equipment and chemicals. The transport equipment is mainly cars; the chemicals are mainly medical and pharmaceutical products, which some of us might think are pretty important. Also included, of course, are agricultural products such as fertiliser, which we might also think are important. Food imports from the EU dropped by a quarter in January, falling below £2 billion in a month for the first time since 2014.
Far worse from our point of view in Scotland are the figures for exports of food to the EU, which dropped by two thirds: fish and shellfish down by 83%, an industry wiped out; meat exports down by 59%; dairy down by half. Lord Frost, that wisest of Brexiters, suggested that the drop in exports was down to stockpiling ahead of the end of transition; I am not sure whether he has thought through the stockpiling of fresh fish—perhaps happy British fish do not rot.
Small businesses offering mail order have been hit hard. Macbeth’s Butcher in Moray and the Ethical Dairy in Castle Douglas both announced in January that they had to stop sending consignments to Northern Ireland. The Cheshire Cheese Company cannot send its products to EU customers. It, like other businesses, was advised by the UK Government to set up shop in the EU to get around the problems caused by the Government’s own failure adequately to negotiate that easiest deal in human history.
It is not just about trade barriers, either. The world’s largest daffodil grower is Varfell Farms at Longrock in Penzance, but its crop is rotting in the fields because it cannot get the workforce in from the EU. Scottish fruit and vegetable growers face the same problem. The loss of freedom of movement means the loss of seasonal workforces as well as the loss of our rights across the other 27 nations.
Brexit has been and continues to be an utter galloping disaster. Scotland is ill-served once again by this den of inadequacy, and so are Wales and great chunks of England. Northern Ireland has a category of pain all of its own.
In the midst of that, we have Tory Ministers who struggle to understand the EU rules that were laid out in simple language and that many, many voices warned about in advance. Scotland will see the back of this nonsense soon enough. Independence is coming for us, and we can then start to repair the harm that these witless Brexiters have thrust upon us.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
I find myself in a curious position in this debate in that while I agree with SNP Members that the EU deal is disastrous for this country, I am dismayed by their motive. I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) about the negative impacts of Brexit: a 40% decrease in UK goods exported to the EU; the UK economy shrinking by almost 3% in a single month; and trade groups telling us about fundamental problems with new trade barriers. The Scotland Food & Drink trade association tells us that the seafood industry has suffered an 83% fall in sales to Europe—an 83% fall. The impact is clear for us all to see but, unlike the hon. Lady, I want to fix it, not to double down and make things worse.
I appeal to SNP Members to listen to their own argument and to assess the logic of the motion they have put before us today. They must acknowledge the damage, which they highlight, that is being done to our economy by leaving a strong, successful economic union. If they listen to their own argument, they will stop their incessant and baseless claims that independence is the answer to every problem from economic decline to bad weather.
If ever the people of Scotland wanted an example or blueprint of what separatism and leaving the United Kingdom might mean for their jobs, livelihoods and wellbeing, they have it. Look at the damage done to our small businesses, our exports and our fishing and farming industries and at the economic dislocation that is being brought about by Brexit. That is what this country is going through. Rather than work together to combat it and to use the benefits of being part of the world’s oldest and strongest economic union, the SNP would, as I say, have us double down and make things worse—separate Scotland from its biggest market, put up a border, cut us off. Yes, I have heard the claims about an independent Scotland rejoining the EU, and it will come as no surprise to anyone in this place that I wish all the UK could at some point rejoin the EU, but the reality is that that is simply not on the table.
Countries that apply to join the EU have to meet criteria. Scotland does not meet the criteria at the moment, and it would be further from attaining that if it were not part of the United Kingdom. Please, let us address the problems we have, rather than create more. Let us make a joint effort to fix the situation that this Government have created with this disastrous Brexit deal. We must not forget that that was a kind of nationalism, too. That deal, together with the pandemic, has left us in a perilous condition. That is what worries my constituents in Edinburgh West this week. People are worried about the recovery. They want their politicians, at all levels, to focus on recovery, and that is what we should do.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
I thought the days of doom and gloom and doubt were behind us and that even the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) would have livened up a bit and become a bit more optimistic about the United Kingdom’s future post Brexit, but obviously not. We were told that the UK’s role in the world would diminish, but we see 2021 as a year in which the UK stands tall in the world: we are hosting the G7 in Cornwall; we have COP26 in Glasgow; a global education conference will see us try to educate some of the poorest children in the world; and we are also going into the presidency of the UN Security Council.
More locally at home in the west midlands, there were many predictions in the years since the Brexit vote that we would see job losses and the end of production at, for example, Jaguar Land Rover. However, what have we seen over the past couple of weeks? A firm commitment by the company and investment in the west midlands—30,000 jobs and so many more thousands in the supply chain across the UK. The six new all-electric vehicles that will be built there will provide so much job security to so many people. A global green Britain—that is the impact of Brexit on my community.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) said that many Conservative Members would have benefited from the Erasmus scheme. Well, I have news for her—I do not think they did, actually. Many of those who benefited from that scheme were middle-class people; it was disproportionately towards middle-class children. People like me from the background that I had in a working-class community in the suburbs of Birmingham did not have those sorts of opportunities. That is why I am pleased that we have an extra £100 million going into the Turing scheme, which will help people from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Time and again, we see examples—I can think of just about 25 million—of Brexit’s positive impact on the United Kingdom. One of those example is vaccines, and today we see disgraceful vaccine nationalism being deployed by the European Union. If SNP Members ever wish to play “Just a Minute” on Radio 4, they would be the worst ever contestants, because we hear hesitation, deviation and repetition from them quite frequently: hesitation, because they want to talk about anything else and far be it from them to talk about any of the issues that are currently happening in the Scottish Government; deviation, because they want to talk about any issue that they do not have responsibility for; and repetition, because time and again they reignite the old debates in this House to cause more division. I thought we had put this behind us. We will see from Brexit that all four nations of the United Kingdom are going to prosper together.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]
East Renfrewshire was one of the areas of Scotland—a proudly European nation—that voted most strongly to remain in the EU. Nearly 75% of people in my community wished to remain and yet here we are having been shunted over the Brexit cliff edge, and now my constituents are paying the price.
While tradespeople and professionals are fighting to overcome barriers to working in the EU that they were promised would not be there, Make UK has found that seven in 10 leading manufacturing companies face delays with EU imports and exports, and Scotland’s creative sector, which has strong links with Europe, sees these links destroyed. The UK Government rejected special arrangements for the creative sector, and then negotiated so incompetently that they retrieved nothing from the wreckage. Whether it is artists or actors, architects or accountants, or those in the service sector, they have been badly let down.
Students in my constituency enthusiastically embraced opportunities offered to them by Erasmus, benefiting themselves and the wider community in the process. Just last year, the Prime Minister said that would continue, but instead current and future students have been failed yet again, with the UK Government chucking out Erasmus with no credible replacement in place—and, no, the Turing scheme absolutely does not do the job and will leave many of our young folk out in the cold.
Among my constituents are also many EU citizens, who play a vital part in making East Renfrewshire such a vibrant and rewarding place. They thought they were welcome, and they are—they are very welcome and our wider community feel that strongly—but they do not feel welcomed by this UK Government. Their needs come as an afterthought at best to the UK Government with their increasingly hostile environment. Is it any wonder that half a million EU-born citizens left the UK last year, undermining workforce plans in sectors as diverse as social care and advertising?
My constituents are deeply concerned about the impact of Brexit on food and consumer standards, and the actions of the UK Government give them every right to be concerned. Time after time—on trade and agriculture Bills, and the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill—Government Members voted to sign standards away and overrule the devolved settlement. The question is no longer whether this Government will sell out our standards; it is just how and when. There is no doubt whatever that the Prime Minister’s so-called oven-ready deal was half-baked at best.
In October, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said,
“there are many areas in which we can co-operate more effectively to safeguard our borders outside the European Union than we ever could inside.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 761.]
This prompted the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) to mouth “utter rubbish”. For once, I believe she spoke for all of us. This Brexit, the deal and the consequences are all, as she said, frankly rubbish. No wonder so many proudly European residents of East Renfrewshire are looking afresh at the opportunities that an open, outward-looking, independent Scotland will bring them.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) [V]
This time three years ago in the Chamber I made a speech about St Patrick and Brexit, noting that wherever he was from, St Patrick was not from Ireland, but he freely wandered our shores as thousands did before him and after him. I said then that the Good Friday-Belfast agreement was not just about Northern Ireland, Ireland or a border, but the freedom of movement of people across these islands and the deep roots we have. I ended by saying that the great people of these islands expect to be able to move and trade freely, and that any dilution of that would not be acceptable to any of us. I stand by my words. I love my country. I love my heritage and the country of my birth. But things got worse, not better, after 2018 and this Tory Government, blinded by a singular narrow English nationalism, have divided us further. England is better than that. It is better than they are.
I believe that nationalism is a scourge. It supports one’s own to the exclusion of others and people in Scotland rightly rejected it, but what this Prime Minister’s Brexit has done is exclude others. It has created division where we thought we were moving forward, and it has given succour to nationalism, separatism and fear. But I remain an optimist, because whatever empire, monarch or constitutional settlement has been in place across these islands, we have continued to trade and migrate. We have married, enjoyed our sports, our arts and our culture. We get on with our lives too often despite, and not because of, political leadership. But we here are political leaders and it is our job to lead, and to defend and advance the interests of our constituents. It is my view that that is never done by excluding others or dividing; it is always done by understanding, including and respecting others. We have mutual interests.
Thirty years ago, politicians in Ireland and Britain did not understand or respect each other. We did not talk or meet, but far-sighted parliamentarians did lead and established forums for us to come together and start to understand each other. I am very proud to have been the British vice-chair of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly for the past few years. In those years, I have had the privilege to sit in the chairs of others in the Senedd, Holyrood, Stormont and the Dáil. I have shared committees with, debated with and had the occasional drink with parliamentarians from all jurisdictions and all parties, some of whom I profoundly disagree with but who have taught me so much about their motivations, their fears and ambitions for themselves, their families and their constituents.
The British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly offers us a way to heal and map the future as parliamentarians. I hope we can bring more informed debate, reflection and respect for difference to the next three years than the last, and I hope other parliamentarians will join us in doing that.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) [V]
Five years ago, 70% of Dudley South voters chose to leave the EU. In 2017 and 2019, when Opposition party candidates asked them to reverse that decision, they reaffirmed their choice with large majorities.
For years, Brexit deniers said that the Prime Minister could not get a withdrawal agreement and that once we had left there was no way we would get a trade deal by the end of 2020. Like the cynics in Edgar Albert Guest’s poem, they scoffed:
“Oh, you’ll never do that;
At least, no one has ever done it;”
but like that poem’s protagonist, the Prime Minister “took off his coat” and went to it. I do not know if he
“started to sing as he tackled the thing
That couldn’t be done,”
but he did it. It was and is a good deal, which they told us “couldn’t be done”.
It is inevitable that there would be some extremely difficult transitional issues, as we switch from a system that we had been increasingly embroiled in for decades to a new arrangement. It is vital that Lord Frost and his team work with our European partners to get them resolved. For example, one firm contacted me to say that it sells leather goods made in Spain and Portugal. It found that the sale to Poland of one pair of shoes, worth £125, attracted £75 in customs fees. An engineering firm is charged 8% by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to reimport bearings made in Nottinghamshire from the French sole distributor—British bearings. This is not what we understood the agreement to mean. I do not think it is what the negotiating teams understood it to mean either, so we have to continue to work with our European partners to sort out implementation.
Brexit does offer big opportunities. Businesses in Dudley South trade with countries in every corner of the world, and the new trade agreements being negotiated and agreed will open up that trade further. The comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership in particular offers incredible potential to increase trade both with some of our closest trading partners and with some of the world’s fastest-growing economies.
However, Brexit is not only about international affairs. It is not only about theoretical government. It is about how we can do things differently here at home. It offers us the chance to look at things such as how we can better structure taxes and have a lower rate of duty, for example, on draught beer or on-sales. That was impossible while we were in the EU, but it is now possible post Brexit. It would allow taxes to better reflect the economic and social contribution that pubs make in all our communities. Taking back control does not mean that all our problems are magically solved, but it does mean that we have the power to take responsibility for those decisions here, in the interests of those we represent.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
During four long years as a shadow Brexit Minister, I sat through many debates peppered with talk of global Britain, as the Government erected barriers to partnership with our most important allies and closest neighbours with complete disregard for the consequences. The Prime Minister has been at it again this week, talking about the UK’s place on the global stage while trashing our reputation abroad, reneging again on international commitments to which he signed up.
It is a time for mature diplomacy—for rebuilding trust to sort out the problems with the Brexit deal as they become increasingly evident. Instead, the Prime Minister has put his former negotiator, apparently no longer trusted as National Security Adviser, back in charge. The now Lord Frost will bring to this vital role all the finesse of doing “origami…with a blowtorch”, as the former Conservative party chairman, Lord Patten, said so eloquently.
The Prime Minister may think that fuelling grievances will win good headlines in the Daily Mail, but it will not help those facing the consequences of his ideologically driven negotiations. Far from the frictionless trade promised, businesses are threatened by extra costs and bureaucracy, and many are taking the advice of the Government’s own officials in moving activities and jobs from the UK to the EU to avoid the barriers that the Government have erected, following many from the services sector, which was completely overlooked in the deal.
It is not just trade that is a problem; taking back control of our borders without the tools to use it is another feature of the deal. Our police and security services have access to less of the information they need to stop dangerous criminals and terrorists entering the country. It does not stop there: performers no longer have the ability to work freely across the continent we share, because the Government refused visa proposals offered by the EU. We have already seen the Government, no longer bound by the EU directives that we helped to write, threaten workers’ rights, if put off by a big backlash.
What about the promises to protect environmental standards? Well, tell that to the bees now threatened by neonicotinoids, which were banned under our EU membership. And in an act of senseless educational vandalism, our young people can no longer participate in the Erasmus scheme. Instead, the new Turing proposals provide a clearly diminished offer, with less funding, a more complex application process, stretched universities left to persuade international counterparts to waive fees without the reciprocity of an exchange, and just four weeks to sort it out. It is perhaps no surprise that the Government have given no guarantee of funding for Turing in future years.
It did not have to be like this. It is the result of choices deliberately made by this Government.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
In a debate about Brexit, we on the Government Benches talk about the positives. Unfortunately, all we have had from not only SNP Members but others, as we have just heard from the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), is doom and gloom.
In a debate on Brexit today, the one thing that I would have expected to hear about from either the SNP or Labour is the actions of the European Union. We have heard today that the EU is now threatening to block vaccines. We have been successful in the vaccine roll-out because we were able to act independently and flexibly. I say that not to gloat, but because we need to inject into this debate some realism about the freedoms we have and the way in which can be agile.
Typically, those on the SNP and Labour Benches will put anything positive to do with Brexit down to something else, but we can look at other things that have proven the benefit of the agility we now have. Scotland, as an integral part of the fifth largest economy in the world, is able to look out on the horizon as part of the four nations of the UK and strike new trade deals. Just next month the Prime Minister will lead a delegation to India, and I hope that Opposition Members will join us in hoping that we can find new ways to export our products and services around the world, including to the fast-growing markets in not only India but places like Brazil and South Africa.
Let me turn to a really important sector for Scotland: the Scotch whisky sector. When we were a member of the European Union, the sector was hit with a 25% tariff and sales to the US fell by 30%—that is £0.5 billion-worth of sales. It was this Government, exercising the rights that we have as an independent trading nation, who got those tariffs removed.
We have heard about the Erasmus scheme, but I am afraid it was not all that those on the Opposition Benches like to claim it was. The Turing scheme, however, will be something we can all be proud of. It does not strip opportunities but provides them. It is global in outlook and allows young people from my constituency and in Scotland—whether they are at school, college, university or another training provider—to look at the countries where they want to go and study and take up such opportunities. Really importantly, the Turing scheme has social mobility at its heart, which I would have hoped the Opposition parties would have welcomed.
All we have heard so far in this debate is doom and gloom, but the opportunities presented by Brexit go far and wide for every corner of our United Kingdom.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
I am grateful to the Scottish National party for organising this debate on an issue on which we share common ground in our anger and grief. My constituency of Lewisham East represents and embraces our diverse global communities, including those from EU countries. We campaigned to remain and we voted to remain, and there is strong support for working closely and collaboratively with our EU neighbours.
Labour and the SNP share common frustrations about how the Conservatives have added insult to injury by tearing us out of the EU and then making major errors in handling the aftermath. We were promised a booming future in trade after Brexit; instead, recent data shows that Britain’s exports to the EU have fallen by a staggering 39%. Our imports from the EU have fallen by 16% as we await import controls. Business leaders question their future as they see an exodus of foreign workers.
All those elements have a negative impact on our economy at a time when it is already struggling because of the pandemic. This means that there is less bread and butter on the table for many people and families up and down our country. The future is bleak: the latest figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility indicate that every UK household could lose £3,600 as a result of Brexit. I hope the Government are listening. Brexit will cause a deeper economic crisis than we have ever faced. It is time that the Government woke up and smelled the coffee. In particular, the crisis will affect low-wage earners and those on benefits. What is the Government’s response?
Although some of us are keen to have a close relationship with our European neighbours, Lord Frost and the Prime Minister seem intent on provoking them. The disgraceful shambles in respect of the Northern Ireland protocol showed the Government’s arrogance when it comes to respecting international law. By breaching the terms of the protocol and refusing to back down, we have provoked the EU27 to take legal action against us. I say to our EU friends listening to the debate, this Tory Government do not represent how the Labour party would behave in government.
As I said in my speech earlier today, I believe in nations collaborating to achieve greater things. That is why I oppose the break-up of the United Kingdom. The ideology of the SNP, prioritising sovereignty over unity, is a continuation of the nationalistic ideology that caused this miserable EU separation. I hope that in discussions about the break-up of Unions, hon. Members will look for common ground, rather than areas of difference.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
This is the second debate today in which the SNP has rehashed arguments that have been long settled, whether in relation to the 2014 Scottish independence referendum or the 2016 EU referendum. It just so happens that the SNP was on the wrong side of both those arguments. No wonder it wants a rehash of those referendums.
I am proud to be a Conservative Member of Parliament, standing between these Benches having delivered Brexit—something 65% of my constituents in Redcar and Cleveland voted for. We have not just delivered Brexit, because in December we delivered the EU-UK trade deal, which is a fantastic landmark trade deal that many Opposition Members—I know not many of them have turned up for the debate today—did not even vote for, including those from SNP, which has initiated this debate today. They speak of the economic consequences of the UK’s departure from the EU. Let me tell the SNP: those consequences would have been far worse if they had gotten their wish and we had not passed the EU-UK trade deal. But we have not just delivered that trade deal; we have delivered many trade deals since our departure from the EU—more than 66, with many more to come, including with the US, I hope.
Brexit was about many things—taking back control of our trade, taking back control of our borders, taking back control of our laws. Aside from the steps that we have taken on trade and laws, we have introduced our points-based immigration system, finally to take back control of our border.
The EU vote was not just about leaving the EU; I have had this conversation multiple times with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office. The EU vote was about communities like mine in Redcar and Cleveland finally getting their voice heard, whether in Brussels or in Westminster, so that they were actually speaking to those in the corridors of power. One of the best things to come out of the Chancellor’s Budget statement only a few weeks ago was the fact that the Government are moving civil service jobs to Teesside, prioritising our towns and allowing people in those left-behind communities to speak to power once again. So, I reject the SNP motion, I fully back the Prime Minister’s amendment, and I thank the Government for all they have done in delivering Brexit for my constituents.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
My constituency has higher unemployment than we would like, and for that reason we certainly welcomed European funding. It helped to support the construction of a new industrial estate in Kilmarnock, which helped create much-needed jobs. What is the replacement for European funding going to look like? Most Ministers here do not know how to pronounce Loudoun, let alone find their way to my constituency, and it is a disgrace that the UK’s so-called shared prosperity fund is managed by the Secretary of State responsible for English local government.
I have constituents who are worried about achieving settled status before the June deadline. That is really galling when we consider that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, when he was chair of Vote Leave, was telling us that Scotland could have control over immigration. Instead, we are wedded to an insular system, and there is a pig-headedness over immigration that saw the UK rule out proposals for visa-free travel for musicians. This is directly affecting the livelihoods of my constituents Hayley Orr and Alan Scobie. Alan plays in the band Skerryvore, one of the top traditional-type bands in Scotland. Their tours to the EU are important as they promote Scotland culturally and generate visits to Scotland as a consequence, so there is a double whammy here if they cannot freely access the European tour circuit.
FMX Event Services of Fenwick provides logistical support and equipment for touring bands. It is lined up for the likes of Nick Cave for a six-month tour in the EU, but now, due to cabotage arrangements agreed with the UK Government, onward journeys within the EU are impossible, ruling out that type of work at present. A business in the constituency that exported deer antlers could not get export licences, so it has relocated to France. John Gall, who owns Brownings the Bakers, makers of the Kilmarnock pie, confirmed to me that packaging supplies, such as cardboard and polythene, are more limited in quantity at the moment and have increased in cost, as has wheat.
The supply of machinery parts for repairs and maintenance is a possible serious issue for all manufacturers. From my constituency, Worksmart Contracts carries out refurbishment and fit-out work across the UK. It has confirmed that the availability of timber is an issue, and that some prices are up 30% on last year. There is price volatility, too, in metals and fixings, which means that there are risks when it comes to pricing tenders, as a successful contract award down the line might mean a company taking a hit if prices continue to rise after it has compiled the tender.
McLaren’s Nurseries in my constituency is the first in Scotland to have a plant passport, but it feels that it is acting as a guinea pig and has found that a costly and exhausting exercise. It is losing out just now on what it can import, and it also faces cost increases. It is looking at having to unpack 10% of its exports—up to 20,000 plants—to be checked by inspectors, which is a massive risk with regard to damage and delay to what are perishable goods. All this goes way beyond teething problems and it is a direct consequence of leaving the EU. It might not be headline news, but this is the real impact on people in my constituency.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) [V]
I cannot say I am surprised that our colleagues on the SNP Benches have decided to devote their time to discussing Brexit today. I missed out on contributing to the previous debate on independence by just one speaker. I would have said, as others did so effectively, that the SNP is a party singularly devoted to doing one thing, which is focusing its time, energy and effort on doing anything other than tackling the day-to-day challenges facing the people of Scotland. If an issue is not related to independence, the SNP is not really interested. If it does show interest in another issue, that is only if that issue can be related back to independence, which is why we are here now, discussing Brexit.
Furthering the division over Brexit serves the SNP’s singular obsession with independence, so today, instead of talking about improving standards in Scottish schools or bringing down waiting times and raising standards in Scotland’s NHS, it wants to talk about Brexit. Of all the SNP positions, I find the ongoing ideological crusade against Brexit the most bizarre. As other Members have asked, how can SNP Members argue, in the same breath, for more devolved decision-making and for giving up decision-making to the EU? How can they complain about the rights and wrongs of our fishing deal if they want the EU to decide on their fishing? How can they complain about the decisions on farm funding if they want the EU to decide their farm funding? How can they complain about our foreign policy and aid spending when they want to rejoin an EU determined to have a bigger and bigger role in both areas?
I am not here to say that there are no challenges facing us as we navigate our new future outside the EU. Change is always challenging. The SNP is not really interested in helping to overcome those challenges. The only solutions and challenges it is interested in are ones that rely on independence. The Government are spending £23 million to support seafood exporters, standing behind businesses across the UK impacted by export delays at the border. Recognising the unique circumstances of the fishing sector, that fund will support businesses that can evidence a loss in exporting fish and shellfish to the EU. The Prime Minister has committed £100 million to help to modernise fishing fleets, on top of the £32 million that will replace EU funding this year.
While protecting trade with the EU is apparently the SNP’s paramount concern, such concern evaporates when it comes to protecting trade with the rest of the UK. Estimates are that more than half a million jobs in Scotland are supported by trade with the rest of the UK. That is over three-and-a-half times more than the 144,000 Scottish jobs that are linked to trade with the EU.
The SNP professes its diehard opposition to Brexit, but that is the latest example of the SNP viewing everything through the prism of independence. Despite the fact that its two positions are entirely contrasting, it feels that that opposition amplifies division and suits its independence obsession, so it will keep waging its ideological crusade long after the Scottish people want it to move on.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) [V]
Despite being born in this country, I found myself living the first two decades of my life in Italy. When I returned to this country in my late teens, I questioned where I belonged, where I identified myself with. The fact that the UK was a Union of four nations that embraced all its identities, ideals and values, which were diverse even within each nation, gave me a sense of belonging among our differences. I love Scotland. The Scottish people are some of the friendliest, most unassuming and loyal people I have ever met, and the theatre too often played out in this Chamber is not representative of people from Dudley or Dunblane.
Brexit means that all four of our nations, when united, will benefit from our renewed position in the world, leading the way in science, innovation, renewable technologies, defence and cyber. Record investment in all those areas and the ingenuity of our scientists, proven by the development of the Oxford vaccine, coupled with the freedoms unleashed by Brexit, mean that a bright, exciting future lies ahead for us all. The SNP has frequently claimed that the case for Scotland’s separation from the rest of the UK is made stronger by Brexit, but if the SNP really wanted a truly independent Scotland, why did it campaign to remain in the EU? The truth, as every SNP Member knows, is that with each passing day the case for separation is made not stronger by Brexit, but weaker.
I am sorry to say that the SNP approach is also somewhat arrogant. It is wrong for the SNP to assume that the EU would agree to Scotland’s membership. Why would the EU rush into accepting the membership of a country that spends much more than it earns, while also setting a precedent for other separatist movements? I do not think Spain would be that quick to agree Scotland’s membership. If the EU did agree, the terms would be extremely punitive financially, as any Greek would attest.
Wherever they live within this United Kingdom, all that any of our constituents want is leadership, stability, humility and fairness. For SNP MPs to interpret selective narrow facts to support a dangerous separatist agenda, rather than supporting what is right for Scotland, the Scottish people and our democracy, shows failure on each of those tests. People in Yorkshire, Cornwall and the Black Country, and across Scotland, have their own unique identities, but we know that together we are stronger and more prosperous.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The Government have described the current Brexit chaos as “teething troubles”, but for British businesses exporting to the EU it has been more like root canal surgery without anaesthetic. The Prime Minister could have opted for close alignment with the single market, which was promised by the leave campaign in 2016, but instead he opted for a hard Brexit that is wreaking havoc on our economy. In the Scottish food and drink sector, EU-bound exports for January 2021 were down 63% on the previous year, while those in Scotland’s largest food export category, fish and shellfish, were down a crippling 83%, and meat and dairy exports fell by half. Meanwhile, new border controls and red tape mean that the fish is rotten by the time it reaches the EU. That is not a pretty sight, and it is probably not a pretty smell either. As they say in Norway, “There is nothing that is in as much of a hurry as a fish on a lorry.”
However, none of that justifies the nonsensical arguments made by the SNP that somehow the best bet for Scotland is to walk away from its biggest market, the UK. The nationalists rightly point to the costs of walking away from the EU, but in the next breath they claim that walking away from the UK is the right thing to do. Two wrongs do not make a right. Let us not forget that the rest of the UK is Scotland’s biggest export market, with 60% of Scotland’s trade going to UK markets and just 19% going to the EU. The economic hit should Brexit and Scottish separation be combined could equate to an income loss of between £2,000 and £2,800 per person every year in Scotland.
The answer to Conservative failures cannot be to put up more trade barriers between Scotland and the rest of the UK. The separatists are making the same mistake that the Prime Minister made: they think separatism delivers sovereignty, but sovereignty in the deeply interconnected world of the 21st century is not a binary choice—just ask the Prime Minister. Despite having claimed to have “got Brexit done”, negotiations are still continuing. The UK is involved in myriad working groups and committees—more than 20 different ones—and desperately trying to resolve conflicts, and that is before we even get to the problems of the Northern Ireland protocol, under which the steel industry, for instance, is set to be hit by 25% tariffs once the quotas run out.
The Prime Minister has weakened our negotiating hand. Sovereignty has been diminished, not strengthened. We are not in the room on decisions affecting the huge 500 million-person market on our doorstep. Our country faces one of the biggest economic recessions in the west, with our businesses under increasing strain not just from the pandemic, but from new trading rules with the EU. The last thing any UK nation needs right now is more division. Only seven years ago, the Scottish people voted to remain in the United Kingdom in higher numbers than the number of Scots who voted to remain in the EU. Credit to them—they know that devolution, not separatism, is the way forward. They know that we are stronger together.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
I rise to speak with mixed emotions. I am delighted to speak about the benefits of the Union, but it is depressing to be here yet again speaking about the divisions that Brexit has caused in the past few years—even more so, given that the debate has been brought to the Chamber by the Scottish National party.
What we have seen throughout the debate is hypocrisy. There is hypocrisy from the Scottish National party, which wants to hear about the benefits of democracy for independence, but does not want to accept the democracy that it is not in favour of. I am thinking of the Brexit referendum and the two general elections since then. There is the hypocrisy of Labour Members, who almost want to pretend that the past few years have not happened. They are still talking as if Brexit should not have happened and we should still be a member of the single market and the customs union. They lost the argument then and they have lost it ever since.
We have got Brexit done, and we have fulfilled a manifesto commitment. We will make a success of it, but to do so we need to come together. It is time to put the divisions of the past few years behind us and make the best of the situation. We have a levelling-up, one-nation Government who are committed to making sure not only that all regions but that all nations in the Union benefit.
Delivering Brexit has been a monumental occasion, and it means that we have been able to put the stranglehold of Parliament behind us. We can talk about the priorities of the British people, whether that is crime, as we have seen in the past couple of days, education, health, defence, or supporting businesses and creating jobs. The Scottish National party should take note and send those messages to Holyrood. It should begin to focus on those priorities and look at constitutional arguments that, quite frankly, are already in the past.
On the back of Brexit, we have been able to focus on the UK’s internal market. We have been able to focus on a vaccine programme that is pretty much world leading, certainly within Europe. Again, we hear time after time from Opposition Members that we should have joined the EU vaccine programme. Where would that have got us? We would be nowhere near where we are now. We have vaccinated roughly 40% of the population, because we were not part of the programme to which those Members were intrinsically linked.
We have signed up to many trade deals, for example, the continuity trade deals and the trade deal with Japan, and there are trade deals we are working on. We are truly a global Britain, and we are the better for it because of the Union, not in spite of it. Again, we have heard arguments about how Scotland will be stronger away from the Union, without any thought about what it will do about defence or currency, or having any real policies. The SNP’s one policy is separation, and that is not for the Union and it is not for global Britain.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) [V]
The news that EU exports are down by a catastrophic 41% since the introduction of the wafer-thin trade deal does not bode well. From the shores of Scotland to the chemical industry in my constituency, the promised land of sovereignty—of taking control with bonfires of EU red tape—is now experiencing what happens when reality bites. It seems that British-inspired red tape has grown in abundance as the result of a shabby deal and the fact that Ministers did not read the detail. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) admitted that she did not bother to read the deal. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs agreed to decimate our shellfish industry, accepting the consequences of the deal in a letter to the EU that he signed, then protesting about them, seemingly forgetting about the letter.
These actions have consequences, with exports from Scottish fisheries to the EU now down by a massive 83%—jobs and livelihoods being dealt a crushing blow—while Ministers proclaim that at least unwanted fish are now British and others bizarrely suggest recipes for the types of fish that the British consumer does not usually consume. We are governed by a Dad’s Army without the humour.
We have a Prime Minister who has stated that there will be no border across the Irish sea—of course, we now have a border across the Irish sea—and that if any paperwork comes as a result of this deal, it will be ripped up. HMRC has confirmed that British businesses will now spend £7.5 billion a year on handling 215 million more customs declaration forms. Chemical exporters, some of which are based in my constituency, are now paying an additional £1 billion for the pleasure. The only thing that has been ripped up are the business plans and the profit margins of British businesses. Many SMEs simply do not have the resources to cope with the level of bureaucracy.
What legal measures are the Government putting in place to mitigate these permanent boulders in the road? At what stage will the Government do an impact assessment —a courtesy accorded to Albania but not Britain, and certainly not Scotland? As for the SNP, they cannot have it two ways. They claim to want to return to a union with the EU while breaking up the Union with their closest neighbour in the rest of the UK.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, although it seems that speaker after speaker, no matter which side of the House they sit on, has chosen to use a substantial portion of their time to castigate the Scottish National party for its choice of debate topic. In truth, I do not think it really mattered which topic we chose. We could have made one debate about sunshine, lollipops and rainbows, and the Conservatives would still have been determined to take up time giving an airing to their only discernible policy of being against a second independence referendum in Scotland, without which they would have nothing at all to put on their election leaflets in Scotland.
Members on both sides of the House throughout the afternoon have displayed a near-demented determination to paint a picture of a dystopian Scotland that anyone actually living in Scotland would seriously struggle to recognise, even in caricature. It rather begs the question why, if the Scottish Government are doing such a bad job, Labour and the Conservatives are currently tussling over which of them will end up in third place in May’s Holyrood elections.
The reason that reliable polls on voting intentions show such strong support for Scottish independence recently is, in large part, due to a significant body of voters in Scotland: those who voted no in 2014, who voted remain in 2016 and who, in the light of all they have experienced and their unhappiness with the way that the Brexit project has unravelled under the Conservative Government, have chosen to embrace independence as the best future for our country. It is somewhat ironic to find ourselves being lectured in this debate about the problems being caused by the creation of borders, when that is exactly what the UK Government have just delivered straight down the Irish sea, under the terms of the deal agreed.
The Minister, amid some quite poorly chosen remarks, asked for one positive suggestion in this debate from the SNP. Let me suggest one that would help to remove a large part of the friction over the border currently between Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland: aligning food and agricultural standards with the EU once again, which would remove the need for the phytosanitary checks that are threatening to leave shelves empty.
Brexit may not have been the circumstances in which we would have chosen to embark on a second independence referendum, but once the pandemic is over, they are certainly the circumstances that make it necessary to pursue that goal, to secure our recovery, to secure our prosperity and to secure the integrity of Scotland’s hard-won democratic institutions. We have always been a European nation. I look forward to us being so once again.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
As number 39 has withdrawn, the final speaker before the winding-up speeches will be James Daly.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) [V]
As a Member representing an English constituency, I welcome the opportunity to say how much the Union of our countries within the United Kingdom means not only to me but to all my constituents in Bury North. Scotland is a brilliant, beautiful country, and I feel honoured to be a citizen of the United Kingdom.
Every Conservative Member is united behind our Government’s mission to level up, bringing prosperity, jobs, increased life chances, massive increases in public infrastructure spending and investment in frontline services to all parts of the United Kingdom. That is our priority, not talking endlessly about Brexit. The SNP could have tabled a motion to address any of those issues, or many more that impact the everyday life and future of everyone in Scotland, and how we in the United Kingdom Parliament could work together with the Scottish Government to secure better outcomes for every resident in Scotland.
Instead, they chose yet again to prioritise their political need, no matter the opportunity, subject or context, to bring every debate back to an independence referendum or their overwhelming desire to rejoin the European Union, rather than concentrate on jobs, skills, investment and many other important subjects that are crucial to Scotland’s future.
As we heard from the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) and many other SNP Members, this is not a debate about the impact of the UK’s exit from the European Union; it is a debate about the desire of the Scottish National party to rejoin at all costs. Myriad statistics show the negative impact on the Scottish economy of independence, and I do not believe we should overlook such things, but at heart this debate is about heart. It is about Members speaking up to say, “I believe in the United Kingdom. I believe in its financial construct, its social construct and its partnership. We must and should work together to achieve the best possible outcomes for all our citizens.”
Even though I am the Member for Bury North, I want to work constantly and tirelessly to ensure that my Government’s desire to level up and to make sure that everyone in each nation of the United Kingdom feels the benefit of the spending that is being put into the economy over the coming years is felt in Scotland.
I will not talk about the past; I want to talk about the future. As an MP. I want to work with the SNP and with all hon. Members to improve people’s lives, and not to engage in the same debate over and over again.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
Some MPs on the Government Benches seemed to think they were speaking in the first debate. While they still cling to the idea of a post-Brexit fairy tale, other MPs from right across the UK have highlighted the chaos caused by Brexit and the lack of preparation for the end of the transition period.
It is not just that Scotland rejected Brexit, but that the UK Government made such a complete bourach of implementing it. In the run-up to the 2019 election, the Prime Minister repeatedly boasted that he had an oven-ready deal. Despite this clearly not being the case, he refused to extend the transition period, even in the middle of a pandemic.
Although the Government spent millions on adverts telling everyone to “Get ready for Brexit”, there was precious little information on exactly what to get ready for. The necessary IT systems were only launched in December, and the Government have now had to delay the start of their own customs and border checks on imports. Although this gives an additional grace period for importers, it puts UK exporters at a huge disadvantage to their European competitors.
It is clear the Government are hoping to blame the impact of Brexit on covid, but recent ONS data shows a much greater fall in post-transition exports to the EU than during the first covid lockdown last spring. January saw a 50% drop in the export of dairy products, a 59% drop in the export of meat and a staggering 83% fall in seafood exports to Europe.
Seafood is the biggest UK food export, and it is dominated by the Scottish fishing industry. I had actually taken the trouble to read the fisheries section of the trade deal at Christmas, and it was clear to me that there was little movement of quota from EU to UK fishermen for most species, and with no ability to swap quota with their EU counterparts, Scottish fishermen would actually be able to attach less of the popular species such as cod and haddock.
The Prime Minister claims that his deal is both tariff-free and avoids all non-tariff barriers, but I think most exporters, including skippers and fish processors in my constituency, would beg to differ. Our local catch is dominated by lobster and langoustine, 85% of which goes to EU customers. In January, the chaos made it almost impossible to export fresh or live seafood to Europe, and most local skippers had to just stop fishing, as they were already paying to freeze fish that they could not get to market.
Despite boats being tied up for weeks in the harbour, the UK Government have made eligibility for their compensation scheme so narrow that most will not qualify for any financial support. Even now, exports are taking three days instead of one, and many exporters are getting less than half their normal prices. Some on the east coast have resorted to landing their catch directly into Denmark to cut out export delays. Unfortunately, this also cuts out the onshore fishing sector, such as fish markets, processors and exporters. The Paymaster General says that she is looking for solutions to Brexit problems. May I gently suggest that the UK Government reconsider their decision to turn down a veterinary agreement with the EU, thereby reducing the sanitary and phytosanitary checks that are causing border delays? The Prime Minister’s understanding may not be too clear, but this is exactly what is meant by non-tariff barriers.
Food and drink are not the only products to be affected. Leaving the European Aviation Safety Agency has already had an impact on pilots and is now increasing costs for aerospace companies. It is not just European customers who do not yet accept the UK Civil Aviation Authority’s certificates; global customers do not recognise them either, and they expect European Union Aviation Safety Agency—EASA—certification. Inter-tec, an aerospace company in my constituency, has had to establish an office in Ireland to maintain its EASA design organisation approval. As well as EASA registration, costing £3,800 per year, it has now had to pay over £11,000 to register with the Civil Aviation Authority, and it faces paying another £11,000 every year in exorbitant annual fees that are three times those of EASA.
With the aerospace industry suffering from the impact of that pandemic, it is hard to understand how the Government think these businesses can survive, let alone thrive in the UK. Such manufacturers are also exposed to the Prime Minister’s other great fallacy: that there are no tariffs in the UK-EU trade deal. Even a cursory perusal of the section on rules of origin shows that manufacturers such as aerospace or electronics, which use a high proportion of non-UK components, will face tariffs when they export their finished goods into the EU.
In addition to the direct harm of Brexit, it is being used as an excuse to undermine devolution. The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 can now be used to force lower food safety and environmental standards on Scottish consumers, while a return to direct rule on infrastructure spending means that UK Ministers, rather than the Scottish Government, will get to decide about Scotland’s priorities. This could result in Scotland’s infrastructure budget being squandered on a white elephant of a tunnel to Northern Ireland, despite the lack of political support for it in either country or any evidence of economic benefit. For Northern Ireland, the problem is not with the ferries but with the Brexit bureaucracy inherent in the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement.
Brexit is a litany of broken promises, with claims that there would be little impact on trade and no change for EU citizens. Even last January, the Prime Minister promised young people that the UK would stay in the Erasmus scheme. The loss of freedom of movement undermines Scotland’s attempt to deal with the demographic challenge of an ageing population and creates workforce issues in public services right across the UK. There has already been a 90% drop in the number of EU nurses coming to the UK, while the Home Office’s health and care visa does not even cover all care workers.
The Government’s hard Brexit bears little resemblance to the sunny uplands eulogised in 2016, and makes a mockery of the promise made during the Scottish independence campaign, “Vote no to stay in the EU”. The other broken promise was that “Scotland is an equal partner in a family of nations”. Well, that has not held up very well, as we saw the 2016 compromise proposal from the Scottish Government dismissed within weeks. The Prime Minister has treated Scotland’s wishes and interests with contempt, and he is already boasting that he plans to ignore the democratic will of the Scottish people.
MPs from other parties have criticised SNP support for the EU, but that just suggests they have not looked at the difference between the two Unions. The outcome of the vote that happened earlier this afternoon and that which will happen at the end of this debate serve to illustrate how even a clear majority of Scottish MPs are simply overruled in this place. This contrasts with the EU, in which countries work as partners and are involved in making decisions. I believe it is only as sovereign nations in their own right that the countries of the UK could avoid having decisions such as Brexit forced on them against their will and could instead choose to work together on common goals. It is only with independence that Scotland and the other UK nations will ever be equal partners on these islands.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Julia Lopez)
I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have taken part in this afternoon’s debate. The contributions from most have been passionate, insightful and optimistic about our nation’s new path outside the European Union, while recognising that our ambitious and wide-reaching trade and co-operation agreement with the EU will take time to embed. Most also set out a belief in the UK.
The British people’s choice to leave the European Union has often been mis-characterised as a nostalgic, inward-looking reflex, and today we have heard from the SNP that it is “post-imperial stress” syndrome. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) derided the UK as “insular little Britain”, while Labour MPs suggested it is toxic nationalism and a disaster. The future is bleak, said the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby). Sometimes it feels as though we are still in the last Parliament. If only they did talk of sunshine, lollipops and rainbows.
Instead, I believe the vote to leave was a recognition, first, that the world of tomorrow demands agility, speed and nimbleness in resolving the challenges we shall face, with greater democratic accountability, not federalism, in decision making. The vaccine roll-out is a case in point. International co-operation and partnership will always be vital for the UK, but that need not be channelled via a costly bureaucracy.
Secondly, the vote was as much about ourselves and how we govern ourselves as it was about the EU, and my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) had that spot-on. It was a request by the British people for us to be more accountable—not to seek scapegoats, but to deliver to communities solutions that fit them. Those in the SNP, in their relentless, sneering negativity, have made it quite clear that they see themselves as unwilling passengers on that journey, but we recognise that Scotland is not the SNP and that the Scottish people are integral to our collective success as active and much valued builders of the UK’s future.
This is why we are not just focused on the opportunities for Scotland that stem from our leaving the EU, but intent on making the levelling-up agenda mean something for each of the four nations in the UK. Ironically, given their appetite for such polls, SNP Members like to frame the choice of voters at referendums as mistakes, and today is no different as they seek to tell the British people once again why they were wrong to leave the EU.
SNP Members talk about the Erasmus scheme without highlighting the tremendous new opportunities for Scottish students from the Turing scheme, which will open up study placements across the world, not just the EU, from September, with grants provided and tuition fees waived. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook) highlighted the opportunities open to working-class constituents in his city.
SNP Members talk about the challenges to the fishing industry without setting out the investment that we are making to grow the Scottish fishing fleet, the collaboration with industry and European partners to tackle border frictions head-on, or the fact that under the agreement we have reached, Scottish fishermen will benefit from being outside the strictures of the common fisheries policy. They talk about the loss of EU regional funding without explaining that we will be at least matching it.
Alan Brown
Will the Minister address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) about the fact that Scottish fishermen cannot swap quotas, and therefore cannot actually access more of the cod and haddock that they rely on as their key income?
Julia Lopez
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), is running the Scottish fisheries taskforce, which is going through some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman highlighted.
SNP Members talk about the loss of EU regional funding, as I mentioned, without explaining that, through the new UK shared prosperity fund, we will at least be matching the funds that have already been distributed to the benefit of communities across our four nations. They talk about the positive role of immigration to the UK without understanding that the desire for greater control of our borders does not undermine the warmth of our welcome to talented, hard-working people from around the world, as our new points-based system attests. They talk of their concern for small business without explaining how our moving away from the EU’s complex procurement regime, rather than clinging closely to it, as they so desire, could open up many more opportunities for SMEs to bid for Government contracts. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) rightly challenged us to be even more ambitious in this area.
I have heard concerns today about Scottish exports without recognition that geographical indications for valued Scottish products remain in the trade and co-operation agreement, and that those products can now also find new markets as we secure ambitious new trade deals with nations such as America and Australia, and we can benefit from those already agreed with Singapore, Japan and Canada. SNP Members portray the UK as a spent force without celebrating the fact that Glasgow will be hosting the COP26 conference, showing global leadership on the issue of climate change, as well as British ingenuity in green tech.
We do not define the relationships between our nations by our 40-odd years of membership of the EU. No—we are bound by the cultural, familial and economic ties of centuries, which SNP Members want to dismantle as they seek so desperately to bind Scotland back into EU bureaucracy. We also have the humility to recognise that our Whitehall-centric model of Government can be improved. It does not do a good enough job of utilising the talents and hearing the voices of everyone in the UK. That is why, this week, the Cabinet Office announced our second headquarters in Glasgow, where at least 500 civil servants will be based as we relocate at least 1,000 roles to Scotland, including from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Brexit was not just about the EU; it is a creative catalyst for us to govern better, which is not a challenge that the SNP seems up for—not when shortcomings can be obscured by finger-pointing. This move brings key decision makers closer to the communities they serve so that we understand the perspective of people in East Kilbride as much as south-west London.
The integrated review published this week on national security, defence and foreign policy sets out the Prime Minister’s vision for the UK in 2030: a stronger, more secure, prosperous and resilient Union that will draw on tremendous Scottish capabilities in space, cyber and maritime industries.
I am grateful for the valuable points that have been raised by right hon. and hon. Members throughout this debate, and I regret that time does not allow me to cover all of them. I have great affection for the Chair of the International Trade Committee, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), from our time together on that body. He will know that the demand for Scottish goods comes from nations beyond the EU and that with tariff-free trade secured in the TCA, we now have scope quickly to dismantle tariffs to new markets. Scotland already exports £7,600 worth of goods to the US every minute, but a new FTA could unlock even more opportunity with the US.
Right hon. and hon. Members highlighted genuine constituency concerns this afternoon that I do not seek to brush over. We recognise that there has been friction for seafood exporters and we have set up the seafood distribution support scheme and the Scottish seafood exports taskforce to work through these issues constructively. I received an email just yesterday from a French counterpart in the Hauts-de-France region who is actively engaged with the taskforce and wished to offer assurances that our continental friends are every bit as eager as we are to deal with issues of paperwork, given the exceptional quality of Scottish seafood and its importance to their regional market, which contains Europe’s largest processing seafood processing centre.
On the issue of touring musicians, we are alive to the concerns that have been raised. We have sought a more ambitious deal with the EU. Unfortunately, that request was rebuffed and we are now actively working with the industry to see how Government can facilitate their ambitions.
The Government remain committed to ensuring that every success is made of our status as an independent, outward-looking nation. We believe that this is an exciting new chapter in our national story, to which the contributions of the Scottish people will be fundamental. Indeed, we have ambitious plans for every part of the UK. Unfortunately, today the SNP has rather limply and sourly exposed that it would rather keep up its habit of blaming others than lay out its own ideas for improving the lives of Scottish people.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
Business without Debate
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 3 and 4 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Police
That the draft Representation of the People (Proxy Vote Applications) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 22 February, be approved.
Ecclesiastical Law
That the draft Grants to the Churches Conservation Trust Order 2021, which was laid before this House on 19 January, be approved.—(Leo Docherty.)
Question agreed to.
EUROPEAN STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS COMMITTEE (TEMPORARY STANDING ORDER)
Ordered,
That the European Statutory Instruments Committee Order of 3 February 2020 be amended as follows:
(1) After paragraph (1)(a) insert:
“(aa) any of the following documents laid before the House of Commons in accordance with paragraph 8(3)(b) of Schedule 5 to the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020—
(i) a draft of an instrument; and
(ii) a memorandum setting out both a statement made by a Minister of the Crown to the effect that in the Minister’s opinion the instrument should be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament (the negative procedure) and the reasons for that opinion, and”;
(2) in paragraph (2), delete “paragraph (1)(a)” and insert “paragraph (1)”;
(3) After paragraph (2)(a) insert:
“(aa) contains any provisions of the type specified in paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 5 to the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 in relation to which the Act requires that a draft of the instrument must be laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament (the affirmative procedure);”; and
(4) Leave out paragraph (16) and insert:
“(16) This Standing Order shall lapse—
(a) in so far as it relates to documents laid in accordance with paragraph 3(3)(b) of Schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (and matters arising from the consideration of such documents), at the end of the period after which no more regulations may be made under section 8(1) of that Act;
(b) in so far as it relates to documents laid in accordance with paragraph 17(3)(b) of Schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (and matters arising from the consideration of such documents), at the end of the period after which no more regulations may be made under section 23(1) of that Act; and
(c) in so far as it relates to documents laid in accordance with paragraph 8(3)(b) of Schedule 5 to the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 (and matters arising from the consideration of such documents), at the end of the period specified in paragraph 8(1) of that Schedule.”—(Leo Docherty.)
Transport for the North: Funding
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I thank Mr Speaker for granting this debate this evening. I sought it after the Prime Minister’s response to me in the House at Prime Minister’s Question Time on 24 February, when I asked him:
“Is the 40% cut to Transport for the North’s budget part of the Prime Minister’s plans for levelling up the north?”
He responded:
“There has been no such cut, and we intend to invest massively in Northern Powerhouse Rail, and in railways in the north and across the entire country.”—[Official Report, 24 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 911.]
That statement was simply incorrect, and I therefore welcome the opportunity this evening to set out the facts.
As background, in April 2018, Transport for the North became England’s first statutory sub-national transport body. Its role was to provide strategic advice on road and rail investment, helping to shape projects, although decisions are still made ultimately in London; to co-manage the north’s rail franchises through the Rail North partnership; to co-client large-scale projects, such as Northern Powerhouse Rail, and to develop and implement an integrated and smart travel ticketing project across the north.
On 4 January this year, Transport for the North received a funding letter from the Department for Transport. This letter was not good news. First, it stated that Transport for the North’s core funding allocation for 2021-22 would be £6 million, a £4 million reduction on the current allocation of £10 million. That was the basis of my question to the Prime Minister. Secondly, in that letter, £33 million of funding for integrated and smart travel, a London-style Oyster card for the north, was also cut by the Government, delaying the roll-out of contactless technology in the north.
Why do these cuts to core funding matter? Throughout the early discussions about what Transport for the North was supposed to do, the point was made repeatedly that it would be a strategic body, responsible for setting priorities for the region. That is precisely what the core funding is meant to support. For an organisation at this stage of its life even to keep the same level of funding would be seen as a cut, but with a 40% cut to its core funding, the Government are undermining the original aspirations for TfN. At the most recent Transport questions, the Minister—I am glad that he has joined us on the Treasury Bench—keenly pointed out that Transport for the North had been set up under a Conservative Government. Why are the Government now clipping its wings just as it is getting ready to fly?
Aside from the cut to TfN’s core funding and the smart ticketing project, the lack of any Government commitment to work with the organisation on the development of its northern transport charter, which will determine the organisation’s future role, including its own allocated pot of funding, is worrying. Together with the cuts to funding, it raises serious doubt about this Government’s commitment to the north, to devolving real power and to genuinely levelling up. My clear question to the Minister tonight is, has Transport for the North’s core funding been cut—yes or no?
Since my exchange with the Prime Minister on 24 February, I have written to him twice, on 25 February and 11 March, to request that he corrects his statement. He has yet to do so, and I have received no substantive reply to my letters. I have also tabled written parliamentary questions asking when he will reply to my letters and have been told that it will be “in due course”. I tabled other written parliamentary questions just today, asking again when I will get the courtesy of a response. I also raised a point of order on 25 February; following the courtesies of the House, I informed the Prime Minister that I was doing so. With the matter still unresolved, I was advised to apply for this Adjournment debate, which was kindly granted by Mr Speaker. This is the very first time in 16 years as a Member of Parliament—having been in the House with five different Prime Ministers—that I have needed to take such a prolonged course of action to try to correct the record.
It now appears that the Prime Minister has on two other occasions in recent weeks made statements in the House that are inadvertently misleading and then failed, or refused, to correct the record. On 22 February, it was over personal protective equipment contracts being on the record. On 10 March, it was the incorrect claim that Labour had voted against a nurses’ pay rise.
Mr Speaker made a clear statement to the House on 11 March. He said:
“All Members should correct the record if they make an inaccurate statement to the House. They can do so by raising a point of order or in debate, or, in the case of Ministers, they can make a statement or issue a written ministerial statement. The Government’s own ministerial code could not be clearer about what is expected of Ministers. It says:
‘It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity’.
The Speaker cannot be dragged into arguments about whether a statement is inaccurate or not. This is a matter of political debate. All Members of this House are honourable. They must take responsibility for correcting the record if a mistake has been made. It is not dishonourable to make a mistake, but to seek to avoid admitting one is a different matter.”—[Official Report, 11 March 2021; Vol. 690, c. 1001.]
Further to the passage quoted by Mr Speaker, paragraph 1.3 c. of the ministerial code goes on to say:
“Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister”.
The fact that the Prime Minister is responsible for enforcement of the ministerial code raises the question of what happens when the Prime Minister may be in breach of the ministerial code and the issue of the accountability of that Prime Minister. We all know the culture of institutions that investigate themselves and usually conclude, “There’s nothing to see here”; it is one that we have seen many times in recent decades. We saw it over Hillsborough, with what the Right Rev. James Jones called the
“patronising disposition of unaccountable power”,
and I have encountered the same problem in campaigning for an independent public inquiry into the NHS infected blood scandal.
The Prime Minister’s cavalier attitude in inadvertently misleading the House and then not correcting the record reflects his strained relationship with his wide-ranging brief as Prime Minister and his attitude to accountability. This does not just disrespect Members of this House; I think it shows contempt for constituents, who send us here. It is a worrying shift to the “alternative facts” culture that we saw in the Trump White House, and is unhealthy for a modern democracy. In the case of Transport for the North, it is the road, bus and rail users in northern England to whom promises have been made who are most disadvantaged if and when there is no accountability for broken promises, moved goalposts or factual inaccuracies.
Let me turn to why what the Prime Minister says about transport investment in the north matters so much to me as a Hull MP. My constituents in Hull North face the daily reality of poor transport links and infrastructure in the north, especially east of Leeds, and the long-standing disparity during the years of the northern powerhouse, as yet unaddressed, between levels of public and private investment in the south-east and the rest of the country. On transport especially, Hull people get a poor deal as fare payers and as taxpayers.
By the time the northern powerhouse was launched in 2014, there appeared to be a growing acceptance of the need to rebalance the economy in several ways, including over investment in transport and other creaking infrastructure across northern England. “Rebalancing the economy” has now become “levelling up the north” in the everyday terminology used, but it means the same, and this broad political consensus is that levelling up the north is not just vital for the north, but would also be a win-win for the wider UK economy. It would boost the north’s productivity, general economic activity and the north’s contribution to GDP growth. It would also take pressure off the congested, overheated infrastructure of the south-east, with the economic inefficiency and constrained productivity and growth that that spawns.
We know that in the digital age, not so much economic activity needs to cluster in the south-east, a point proven again during the covid crisis. More employees can work from home than before, and not so many homes and workplaces need to be in or around the M25. However, levelling up is only meaningful when we start to see action on the ground—physical evidence that transport schemes are under way in this decade, far beyond just the moving of transport civil servants to Leeds, as announced in recent days.
So what has been happening in Hull in terms of transport investment? The first significant development after the launch of the northern powerhouse was, sadly, Tory Ministers in November 2016 blocking Hull’s privately financed scheme to electrify the rail lines into Hull. In recent years, Hull has seen a downgrading of our rail services, even in relation to towns like Scarborough, which, unlike Hull, now enjoys a direct rail link to Manchester airport. The city of Hull currently faces a further downgrading of cross-Pennine rail services and even slower services. Certainly, it has been my suspicion that we will see commercial space travel before we get the high-speed electrified rail line between Hull and Liverpool that the Hull and Humber chamber of commerce and many others have long pressed for. Delivering on the previous promises of a high-speed northern rail powerhouse, Crossrail for the north or HS3—it has been called all those things in recent years—is a minimum requirement if Ministers are serious about levelling up: a fully electrified rail line between Hull and Liverpool.
East-west connectivity across the north is as important as the north-south link to London. Just a few spur links to HS2, especially the cut-down version that would be more distant from the Humber sub-region, do not amount to levelling up the north. Transport for the North research shows that Northern Powerhouse Rail, once delivered, would contribute £14.4 billion in annual gross value added to the UK economy and create up to 74,000 new jobs in the north by 2060. With the challenges of Brexit and “building back better” after covid, this economic boost is now perhaps even more important for the whole country, not just the north, than was the case a few years ago. As just one example, the boost it could give to the steel industry alone is vital for places like Scunthorpe. The importance of boosting capacity for passengers and freight across the north is only underlined by the new freeport status of both the Humber and Liverpool.
A few years ago, it was estimated that the north needed £100 billion-worth of investment to catch up with London and the south-east. Before the 2019 general election, that scale of investment was promised by the Prime Minister within a five-year Parliament. So far, that level of transport investment remains a promise. Funding for the Northern Powerhouse Rail project appears to remain at the level provided for 2020-21, but the fact that Transport for the North was told by Whitehall to delay submission of its business plan until after the Government’s integrated rail plan, itself delayed yet again, shows again that Transport for the North does not have the devolved powers and clout that, for example, Transport for London enjoys. The Department for Transport still controls funding for Northern Powerhouse Rail. Although a statutory body, Transport for the North is only an advisory body—Whitehall still decides. This is why we want straight talking from the Prime Minister, just as we are famed for in Yorkshire.
In Hull, we have worked hard through the austerity decade to make our own luck, with Siemens and the energy estuary, a growing tech sector, city of culture status and exciting projects like the Hull lagoon and Maritime Hull. However, when it comes to transport investment, we are tired of being promised jam tomorrow, but having jams today. We have had advances such as cutting the Humber bridge tolls and the Mary Murdoch connection across the A63, and we are finally seeing Pacer trains gone, although we still have the polluting diesel rolling stock. But every step forward has been hard won, usually delayed for years and tiny in scale compared with the investment we see elsewhere in the country, especially in Greater London. Meanwhile, Hull Trains, the open access rail operator that has provided Hull’s main direct rail link to London—a service built up successfully over the past 20 years to meet demand, amid all the franchise and infrastructure problems on the east coast main line—has not received any of the Government support that others in the rail industry have had during the covid crisis.
Other levelling-up funding streams, from the new towns fund to the levelling-up fund and the community renewal fund, do not point to a scale of investment that will be transformational even for the most favoured areas, and certainly not on the scale that London docklands has enjoyed since the 1980s or that London and the south-east have seen—including, among many examples, the £19 billion spent on Crossrail over the last 12 years of construction. If levelling up is to mean anything, it must be a whole-north approach, and the funding, the city deals and the devolution must be instruments for economic regeneration in the national interest, not for political gerrymandering.
In conclusion, I hope that I have shown why statements made by the Prime Minister about transport in the north matter to people who live in Hull and should matter to people across the whole United Kingdom. We need improvements to start happening visibly in the 2020s, rather than just hearing more about the Prime Minister’s latest fantasy project, such as a bridge or tunnel to Northern Ireland.
When I am in London, I frequently pass the £500 million shiny new Crossrail station at Canary Wharf, built with private investment and complete with its own lush roof garden. The site is surrounded by all the other fruits of 40 years of ongoing London docklands regeneration work from both public and private investment. There cannot be a greater contrast than with my own battle over the past three years to get the botched, on-the-cheap waiting room and toilet improvements at Hull’s Paragon station, managed by TransPennine, which unfortunately seems not to even be able to sort that out. If we really are to be one nation, levelled up and facing the future, those two symbolic locations must stop being such a tale of two cities. That is why Transport for the North needs to be properly funded.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
Let me start by saying that delivering high-quality, world-class transport infrastructure in northern England and following through on our commitments to level up remain a top priority for the Government. Transport for the North shares that ambition, and I am surprised and disappointed that its latest funding settlement has provoked such a great deal of consternation. Let me assure Members across the House that Transport for the North’s funding settlement is appropriate and fair and enables it to continue to carry out its statutory functions, which is what it was established to do. Given the level of scrutiny that its funding settlement has received, I think it would be helpful if I laid out all the facts here today, so that we can finally move on and focus on what is really important to people in the north: delivering for the north.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am surprised that the Minister did not pay the usual courtesies at the beginning of his speech, but I will leave that to one side. I want to ask again the question that I posed in my speech: can the Minister confirm whether the budget for Transport for the North, which was £10 million, has now been reduced to £6 million—yes or no?
Andrew Stephenson
No. I will now continue, and as the right hon. Lady did not observe the usual courtesy of only taking 15 minutes, I will not take any further interventions.
Dame Diana Johnson
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am rather annoyed by that comment, as I was in the Chamber waiting to be called to speak, and the Minister did not even have the courtesy to be on the Front Bench when the debate started.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
That is not really a point of order, but it is up to the Member who has the Adjournment debate to take a reasonable amount of time, and I have to say that I have seen Adjournment debates in which the Member in charge has taken considerably longer than the right hon. Lady. I think the Minister does have adequate time to reply.
Andrew Stephenson
I will always defer to your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. For the record, I was waiting behind the Speaker’s Chair for at least five minutes, but there was a Minister at the Dispatch Box and, due to social distancing, it would have been inappropriate for me to come into the Chamber and on to the Front Bench while the previous Minister was here.
At Prime Minister’s questions on 24 February, the right hon. Lady said:
“Is the 40% cut to Transport for the North’s budget part of the Prime Minister’s plans for levelling up the north?”
In response, the Prime Minister said:
“There has been no such cut, and we intend to invest massively in Northern Powerhouse Rail, and in railways in the north and across the entire country.”—[Official Report, 24 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 911.]
Transport for the North became a statutory body in April 2018. I was proud to serve as a Government Whip on the statutory instrument Committee that oversaw the process at the time.
Let us first look at the budget that has been available to Transport for the North since it was established. Transport for the North has had a core funding grant of £10 million per year since it was established as a statutory body. That settlement has been used to support core operations, as well as to underpin Transport for the North’s medium-term financial strategy through the maintenance of reserves. The Department and Transport for the North have agreed a minimum reserve of £2 million.
However, this financial year, partly as a consequence of the coronavirus pandemic, Transport for the North underspent its core grant and built up significant reserves. According to its own forecast, its reserves would have grown to an excessive £9.5 million if its funding had remained unchanged this year. Ministers therefore took the decision to adjust Transport for the North’s core settlement this year, allocating £7 million for the current financial year and £6 million for the next. That is a prudent and sensible use of taxpayers’ money that ensures that Transport for the North still has enough to continue to deliver on its statutory functions while making sure that it does not continue to build up unnecessarily large reserves.
To come to the crux of the argument, it is important to note that the core funding grant is just one of several funding streams that make up Transport for the North’s budget. During 2018-19—its first financial year as a statutory body—some £388,000 was available for the Rail North partnership grant. That has risen year on year, with £680,000 available this financial year and a further rise to more than £750,000 anticipated for the next financial.
Likewise, when Transport for the North was established as a statutory body, £15 million was made available for Northern Powerhouse Rail in 2018-19. Again, that amount has risen year on year, with £59 million available this year, rising to £67 million in the next financial year, subject to the usual agreement of programme activity with the Department, as co-client.
In the 2015 spending review, Transport for the North was allocated up to £150 million to support its integrated and smart travel programme. It has utilised only £24 million in the past five years to enable the roll-out of smart ticketing throughout the north. Additionally, it incurred development, business-case and other project costs of around £10 million, but was unable to produce a business case for its ambitious multi-modal projects that was acceptable to all transport operators in the north.
The multi-year funding for Transport for the North’s integrated and smart travel programme was always due to expire at the end of this financial year. We are considering how best to deliver more effectively the roll-out of smart ticketing to improve passenger services throughout the region.
What all that amounts to is that the Prime Minister was right in his assertion that there has been “no such cut”. Taking into account all the funding streams available to Transport for the North, its budget has not been reduced by 40%. To that end, impartial website Fullfact published a piece on 3 March, in reference to the 40% reduction quoted by the right hon. Lady. It stated:
“This much is being removed from Transport for the North’s core funding, though not from its total funding. It will be able to access some extra funding from other programmes to supplement its core funding.”
I am happy to provide even more clarity on those figures. First, the 40% reduction in Transport for the North’s core funding will not take place until the next financial year. Secondly, looking at its core funding for 2021-22, the Department has agreed that Transport for the North can charge £2.5 million of the costs that previously came from its core budget to the Northern Powerhouse Rail programme, significantly reducing the impact of the reduction in its core expenditure.
The right hon Lady again asked the Prime Minister, in a written question on 1 March, about Transport for the North’s funding settlement, and the Prime Minister responded promptly on 4 March that Transport for the North’s overall funding means that it will have access to over £70 million this coming financial year alone.
For the avoidance of doubt, let me quote what the Prime Minister said in response to the right hon. Lady:
“A reply will be sent in due course. Transport for the North’s overall funding means they will have access to over £70 million this coming financial year alone. We are building on the £29 billion we have invested in transport in the north since 2010 with: the Integrated Rail Plan bringing together HS2, Northern Powerhouse Rail, and our multi-billion-pound rail investment programme; our £5 billion investment into local bus and cycle links, including in the North; our £4.8 billion Levelling Up Fund which will benefit communities across the region; and our £4.2 billion intra-city transport fund, benefitting bus, train, and tram services across our 8 largest city regions. And at Budget, we reaffirmed our commitment to northern infrastructure, with: the launch of the UK Infrastructure Bank, headquartered in Leeds; a new government economic campus in Darlington; investment in offshore wind port infrastructure in Teesside and Humberside; and over £450 million in Towns Fund Deals for towns across the north—investing in infrastructure and culture from Middlesbrough to Bolton, to Rochdale and Scunthorpe.”
I think that more than clarifies and settles the matter of the adjustments to Transport for the North’s funding. The settlement is fair, reasonable and appropriate, and indeed Transport for the North will continue to receive more funding than any other sub-national transport body.
Lately, the subject of Transport for the North’s funding has too often been conflated with investment in northern transport and the Government’s commitment to levelling up more generally, and again I would like to set the record straight. To be clear, Transport for the North is not, and has never been, a delivery body. It is a strategic body, there to provide advice to the Government—something that it is perfectly able to do within its current funding settlement. Therefore, a reduction in Transport for the North’s core funding will not impact on the delivery of the vital infrastructure projects that the north needs. The Government are wholly committed to levelling up all parts of the country, including the north. Therefore, £29 billion has been invested across the north since 2010. There is still a long way to go, but we are on the right track.
I do not have time tonight to list the many schemes and investments that we are progressing across the north, but I will mention a few. The dualling of the A66 has seen its construction time scale halved by the Government’s Project Speed. The planned reopening of the Northumberland line to passenger services will better connect our communities in the north-east. We are embracing our ambition of a zero-carbon future with a planned hydrogen transport hub in the Tees Valley.
Last July, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced an initial £589 million, with more to follow, for the trans-Pennine route upgrade, delivering much-needed rail capacity and reliability between Leeds and Manchester. In addition, I am pleased that the right hon. Lady shares my joy at the new freeport being established on the Humber, alongside two other sites in the north, at Liverpool and Teesside. Furthermore, I am surprised she did not mention that the work on the improvement scheme for the A63 Castle Street in Hull is under way. She mentioned the incredibly beautiful bridge, to which many of her colleagues have paid tribute—the Murdoch’s Connection bridge—that is providing safe and convenient crossings for pedestrians and cyclists. The very fact that we are getting on with these schemes underlines our commitment to levelling up.
I could go on, but the point is that changing Transport for the North’s core funding settlement does not alter the Government’s commitment to the north or to levelling up. Our ambition is to deliver world-class infrastructure in the region and unlock the potential of the northern powerhouse. Opposition Members will continue, I am sure, to play games and try to score points, but this Government will not be distracted from building back better and delivering record investment to the region.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) | Robbie Moore |
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) | Ian Paisley |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) | Ben Everitt |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP) | Ian Paisley |
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP) | Ben Lake |
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP) | Ian Paisley |
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) | Ben Lake |
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
James Heappey (Wells) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
John Howell (Henley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con) | Anthony Mangnall |
Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) | Mr William Wragg |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con) | Robbie Moore |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) | Ian Paisley |
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Owen Thompson |
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) | Robbie Moore |
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con) | Antony Higginbotham |
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) | Ian Paisley |
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con) | Mr William Wragg |
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op) | Mark Tami |
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con) | Robbie Moore |
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP) | Ian Paisley |
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) | Mark Tami |
Draft Extradition Act 2003 (Codes of Practice and Transit Code of Practice) Order 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing and to sit only in the places that are clearly marked. I remind everyone that Mr Speaker has stated that Members should wear masks in Committee, except when speaking. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could send their speaking notes by email, if at all possible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Extradition Act 2003 (Codes of Practice and Transit Code of Practice) Order 2021.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this type of Committee for the second week running, Mrs Miller. I wish the Committee—especially my good friend the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), the shadow Minister—a happy St Patrick’s day.
The order will update our existing codes of practice for police powers under the Extradition Act 2003, and will introduce a new code of practice for non-UK extradition transit.
I will deal first with the codes covering the police powers. These revised codes of practice govern the way in which police use their powers under part 4 of the 2003 Act. They relate to search and seizure, applications for warrants and production orders, entry to premises, and the treatment of detained persons after arrest in extradition cases. The updated codes take account of changes that have been made to the relevant Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 codes of practice—commonly known as the PACE codes—on which extradition codes of practice are based.
The update codes also incorporate necessary changes brought about by the new power of arrest granted in the Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Act 2020, which, as Members may recall, was passed by the House last year with widespread support. The codes of practice currently in use were published in September 2011. The changes therefore bring the codes fully up to date, providing operational clarity for policing. Amendments have also been made to set out more clearly the procedural rights for individuals on arrest and throughout the subsequent extradition proceedings.
The code of practice for non-UK extradition transit will provide the basis for transit through the United Kingdom in extradition cases. That will enable the UK to fulfil certain treaty obligations, including those established as part of the new surrender arrangements with the European Union. Extradition transit occurs when a country allows an individual who has been extradited to pass through its territory, while remaining in police custody throughout, when a direct route between the countries concerned by the extradition request is not possible, or other reasons make it undesirable.
For clarity, if the order is approved by Parliament, the codes will be brought into operation on 1 May 2021. I hope that I have clearly set out the purpose of the two codes, which I commend to the Committee.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Miller. I thank the Minister for his good wishes for St Patrick’s day, and I extend mine to all colleagues in the Committee.
The Opposition will not oppose the codes. They are functional and practical, clarifying roles, responsibilities, and the need for officers to understand and uphold rights. I thank the Minister and his private office for their customary courtesy in engaging with us on these matters. I do have some questions for him, however.
First, we welcome the fact that both codes have been duly strengthened by feedback from relevant agencies, organisations, operational partners and, indeed, devolved institutions where appropriate, during a process of consultation. It is our view that such consultation is not simply a tool of scrutiny and oversight; it often vastly improves policy. The changes made in the SI, such as greater clarity on procedural rights throughout the extradition process and more clarity on the new power of arrest, are testament to that.
On the consultation, the formal response paper published by the Home Office outlines that suggestions were put forward on the issue of search and seizure of provisions, and indeed on legal professional privilege material, but it then concluded that these concerns were already adequately reflected in the codes. Can the Minister give some additional assurances on that? Perhaps he could explain what the original concerns were and why they would be raised if they had already been addressed. As I have said in previous Committees on which we have served together, I understand that officials are not present and I am happy for the Minister to write to me, because these are technical matters.
Secondly, we also know that concerns were raised about the then unknown future provisions for extradition proceedings with EU member states post Brexit, and of course about the lack of clarity right up to the 11th hour. I have great sympathy with such concerns: they are an expression of similar ones outlined by Opposition colleagues and those across the House on many occasions. But now we know about the arrangements, however, so can the Minister update us on their implementation? What are the experiences of police and operational partners on their operational efficacy? In practical terms, are they working? In short, is extradition now working as frictionlessly as under the previous regime?
I can give the Minister some feedback, which perhaps he might pass on to his colleague the Prime Minister. It comes not from the Opposition but from some of his own colleagues, including former Cabinet Minister David Lidington and other esteemed and highly regarded Conservative Ministers, who said in February that the Prime Minister was not being ambitious enough on security relations with our closest partners, and that the UK is less safe and secure as a result—not least given that, they say, some criminals will not be extradited under the current state of play. It is incumbent on the Minister to respond to some of those charges, because they are quite significant.
Finally, on the new power of arrest, we have always said that we would look studiously at the practical implementation and operational impact of the Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Act 2020 during its passage. Can the Minister give us an update on how it is functioning? Is it working, and what has been the feedback from operational partners?
To conclude, we will not oppose the SI. As I have said, the codes are practical and functional, and we do not wish to impede the measures or put operational clarity at risk for police working in this field, but we welcome the changes that have come out of the consultation.
As I have said on many occasions before, national security and the protection of families and communities is, and always will be, a top priority for the Labour party. On extradition, as elsewhere, our approach will always be one that supports our hard-working police and their strategic colleagues as they undertake vital tasks, while also ensuring that we place rights and freedoms at the heart of everything we do.
Kevin Foster
I thank the shadow Minister for the overall constructive tone of the comments that he has just made, and for the general support that he provides as shadow Minister to work in this area. We agree that people who have committed serious crimes that would be crimes in the United Kingdom should not escape to our shores as a way to avoid justice and facing cases that they are rightfully being asked to answer in foreign jurisdictions.
I will respond to the three specific questions that the hon. Gentleman asks. On the first one, I am happy to provide slightly more detail in writing. I can provide some reassurance that, in many cases, the codes of practice are very similar to the codes of practice under PACE. There is a lot of similarity, and in many cases the police would normally follow those as a default if there were any uncertainty about things such as legal access, the position with lawyers, and of course the very important principle of legal privilege and people being able to access legal advice during a process where potentially their liberty may be on the line.
On the operational positions with the European Union, our initial feedback is that they appear to be working fairly well. For clarity, those under the former European arrest warrant were carried over into the new system, and surrender requests have been issued under the new system. Our understanding from police operational colleagues is that they are working fairly well; of course, it is too early to have published detailed figures and analysis. I am sure that the shadow Minister will accept that we need to have had a period with them in place, and particularly a period without a global pandemic, which is inherently reducing people’s ability to travel and therefore to attempt to come to or leave the UK, if they are wanted for an offence.
The shadow Minister will be aware that some EU states have fundamental bars on the extradition of their own nationals beyond the European Union. I have placed in the Library the list of countries that have given us those notifications. We continue to engage with them, but to be clear we do not have a principle of reciprocity. We believe quite firmly as a Government that if our nationals have a case to answer in a friendly democracy on a matter that would be an offence here in the UK, and we are satisfied that it is not a political crime or charge, they should go to that country and answer that case.
The shadow Minister rightly highlighted the new provisions that allow police officers to arrest someone where there is evidence that they are wanted for a serious crime by one of our key international partners, certified by the National Crime Agency. Again, we very much appreciated his support during the process for that legislation. As he will know, there have been incidents where a police officer with access to Interpol and certified alerts encountered someone here in the UK and, because of a loophole in the law, could not immediately detain them pending a formal request for extradition of that person being made—in one case, that resulted in a child sex offender literally being able to walk away from the police, even though they were wanted in a friendly jurisdiction.
Those measures are starting and they are working. Police officers already had the information that they needed on their systems. The best way of putting it is that it has cleaned up and made much simpler the process of quickly bringing someone into custody if they are wanted. For the benefit of the Committee, I should say that the countries that it affects are effectively our Five Eyes partners. They are the main ones that we have designated so far, and we could of course designate more friendly democratic countries whose criminal justice systems we are satisfied operate independently of any political or other concerns.
Finally, it is worth putting on the record that the two orders do not extend or change in any way the matters for which someone can be extradited from this country. To again reassure the Committee, we would permit transit only where it is between countries to which we would usually extradite. The Committee will be aware that we do not agree extradition to all countries in the world, given our concerns about human rights.
Kevin Foster
We are not proposing to do a trade deal with one or two countries, that is for sure. To reassure the Committee, we would not allow transit if, for example, the death penalty may be an issue, such as in the United States. We would seek our normal death penalty assurances if transit were happening through the United Kingdom, or for matters that were not crimes within the United Kingdom.
I think that this has been a productive session, and we look forward to getting the measures in place on 1 May.
Question put and agreed to.
HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS) (WEARING OF FACE COVERINGS IN A RELEVANT PLACE AND RESTRICTIONS: ALL TIERS) (ENGLAND) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place and Restrictions: All Tiers) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 247).
At the outset, I would like to say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank every person and organisation that has mobilised to fight the coronavirus disease. It is not possible to name-check everyone, but I want to single out for thanks those involved in the deployment of the vaccine, including people working in the NHS, social care, primary care and community pharmacies, as well as returned healthcare staff and the Army. I thank scientists, pharmaceutical companies and those running clinical trials for the development of new vaccines, antivirals and all manner of therapies to combat the threat of a mutant virus. Lastly, I thank the general public for continuing to follow the lockdown rules.
The attitude of the public remains resolute, and I appreciate that huge sacrifices are being made by many, but the actions that people are taking now are protecting their families and loved ones, as well as the families and loved ones of others. Our focus remains on the roll-out of the vaccine, the development of a sure-fire system to battle any mutations, and an exit strategy from this dreadful pandemic. Thanks to the incredible efforts of the NHS, medical professionals and volunteers across the country, we are making huge strides in vaccinating the most vulnerable. Over 24 million people had their first dose by 15 March, and everyone eligible in the highest four priority cohorts has been offered their first dose.
I want to update hon. Members on the steps that the Government are taking to ease lockdown restrictions and allow us all to start to reclaim our lives. The “COVID-19 Response—Spring 2021” document provides a road map out of the current lockdown in England. The approach focuses on data, not dates, and each step has a “no earlier than” date five weeks later than the previous step, to allow time to assess the impact of the previous step and provide a week’s notice before the changes occur.
The steps for easing restrictions will be taken at the same time across England in a national approach, in the absence of significant regional disparity. At each step, we will make an assessment against the following four tests: the vaccine deployment programme continues successfully; the evidence shows that vaccines are sufficiently effective in reducing hospitalisations and deaths among those who have been vaccinated; infection rates do not risk a surge in hospitalisations, which would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS; and the assessment of the risk is not fundamentally changed by new variants of concern.
We are here today to discuss the first set of measures, which were introduced on 8 March 2021. The first measures in steps 1 and 1A of the road map were implemented through the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place and Restrictions: All Tiers) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021. These are amending regulations to ease the social contact restrictions in order to permit people to leave home for the purpose of outdoor exercise and to meet another person outside their household. In line with the reopening of schools, they reopen wrap-around childcare to enable parents to go to work or seek work, or to attend educational training, a medical appointment or a support group.
The regulations also amend the all-tiers regulation to ensure that voting in polls on 6 May 2021, and the supporting activities in the weeks preceding the polls, can take place in a way that minimises transmission risk while allowing for meaningful campaigning activity.
The face-covering regulations are amended to make it mandatory for face coverings to be worn in indoor venues used as polling stations, count venues and postal vote opening venues in England. This will apply to poll workers, observers and people casting their votes at polling stations, and to vote counting venues, to ensure that the May elections are observed as safely as possible. That will help safeguard voters, counters and other staff, supporting the elections and ensuring the consistency of rules in indoor settings that are used for local elections.
Furthermore, the regulations facilitate the 2021 census, which will take place on 21 March, by ensuring access digital access to public services from certain closed venues, such as community centres. That will enable people without access to the internet at home to complete their census returns.
Finally, the regulations introduce a requirement for people travelling out of the UK from England to provide their reason for travel on a declaration to travel form. The instrument introduces fixed-penalty notices for failure to comply with those requirements. We must be cautious as we look to ease restrictions. The virus is still prevalent, with significant pressure on the NHS. We have approximately 8,000 patients in UK hospitals as of earlier this week, which is still too high. However, the number of covid patients in hospital has been decreasing since the peak on 18 January 2021, when some 39,000 patients were in hospital.
As noted in the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies minutes published on 22 February, the size of the epidemic is reducing, with admissions now falling in all regions and hospital occupancy declining. The measures are also clearly working to reduce transmission. That shows that we are taking the necessary action to help to keep us all safe. The data so far suggests that both the Pfizer-BioNTech and the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines are effective against the dominant strains of covid.
The success of the vaccination roll-out, alongside falling infections and hospitalisations, is paving the way for a cautious and gradual lifting of restrictions. Before 29 March, we expect to lay a statutory instrument to replace the previous regulations with new provisions that enable the road map to come into force. It will be for debate and approval by Parliament before the Easter recess. I again pay tribute to the fantastic staff in the NHS and social care sector, who are working tirelessly to protect the vulnerable and save lives. I commend the regulations to the House.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I thank the Minister for her introduction to the regulations, which, as she said, amend the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations and the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations, and which came into force on 8 March. They include amendments on outdoor recreation, wrap-around childcare, the census, declaration to travel forms, elections and face coverings.
I join the Minister in her thanks to all those who have been involved for what is a year now in the fight against the virus. As she rightly points out, it is in a much better place than it was, but we are not out of this yet. There are many different elements to the regulations, as she highlighted, and we will not oppose them, but it is worth pointing out that, despite the very wide range of elements in them, the only thing that they have in common is that they are not urgent. The first page of the regulations says that
“the Secretary of State is of the opinion that, by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make this instrument without a draft having been laid”.
The Minister will forgive me, because I have said this to her many times, but there is nothing in the regulations that I would class as so genuinely urgent that they had to be implemented without parliamentary approval first. It seems that that statement is just bolted on to every regulation that the Department issues now, without any consideration about whether it is genuinely urgent. As she said, the regulations have already been operational for 10 days. As has happened many times previously in debates regarding health protection regulations, we find ourselves in a position where we are retrospectively approving legislation that has already come into effect.
We previously had a commitment from the Government that regulations would be debated in advance. Just last month, when I raised the issue with the Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health, on a previous set of regulations, her response was that the Government had to move very quickly on that occasion to introduce measures in response to the South African variant, but that is not the explanation today. I do not think that that explanation stood up last time, and I certainly do not think that it does today.
The Minister sought in her opening remarks to justify the use of emergency powers on this occasion. Of course, we accept that the Government need to act quickly in response to new challenges and new scientific advice—indeed, we have been calling for them to do that, because too many lives have been lost because of delayed decisions. But these regulations are not dealing with measures to do with a rise in cases or new variants, so in my opinion they do not meet the test of urgency.
When we consider that, on 21 and 22 September last year we debated 17 sets of regulations in six Committee sittings across two days, it does not sound particularly plausible that when the House is sitting it is not possible to find time to debate just one statutory instrument ahead of the regulations’ coming into force. The Minister might say that the childcare regulations were time-critical, but even they had several weeks after the Prime Minister’s announcement of the road map to be published and debated in advance of becoming law. Certainly in terms of many other things, there is no case to be made at all that they needed to be done in that way.
We know, for example, that the elections that were due to be held in 2020 have been postponed for a year, so there was arguably 12 months’ notice for the Government to decide how they wanted to deal with those elections. Of course, the census takes place only once a decade, so the Government can hardly claim that that required urgent action. Likewise, the travel element of these regulations is not new. The restrictions were announced in January, and the requirement to complete a form was announced last month. Again, there was plenty of time for the regulations to be debated before they came into force last week, and these are not minor or technical changes to the law—they are major infringements on an individual’s liberty, so they should not be relegated to a debate after the event.
We have seen such a pattern time and again, and we have seen it far too often with very little justification put forward. We accept that at the start of the pandemic there was a need to act quickly in a genuine emergency, but that point has long since passed. We are now in a very different situation where, thankfully, case numbers are falling, deaths and hospital numbers are falling, and vaccine doses are rising. It is simply not a situation where emergency measures are required in the same way as they were 12 months ago.
The Department has got itself into a very bad habit of equating the word “coronavirus” with the word “urgent”. If proceedings on every regulation with that word in it are an urgent matter, the analysis of the situation is clearly not correct. It is part of a wider pattern that we see across Government, where there is a disregard for the normal rules—where transparency, accountability and scrutiny can be dispensed with under cover of the pandemic. We have seen that that takes us into a place that I have never been comfortable with, and I will continue to object until we get back to operating in the way that we should in a properly accountable and democratic system.
I now turn to the regulations before us. I have a couple of questions for the Minister arising from the comments in the explanatory memorandum. Paragraph 2.7 on page 2 states:
“This instrument also makes minor amendments to the All Tiers Regulations to clarify policy and ensure consistency.”
This is not the first time, of course, that regulations have included an element of patching up to rectify previous mistakes. The Minister did not set out in any detail what was being clarified or rectified, so I hope she will be able to do so when she responds. Will she tell us whether these mistakes have led to anyone being wrongly fined or having their movements or liberties impinged on? If she cannot tell us that today, perhaps she will put it in writing to us because such details are important. It is not acceptable for people to be wrongly punished or to have other encumbrances on their liberty or livelihood because of drafting errors in legislation.
When such mistakes occur, it is not enough to give them a passing nod through a delegated legislation Committee, particularly when it is far from the first occasion on which that has happened. This shows why it is important to have the law subjected to full scrutiny before it is implemented. If these things were done in the proper order, we might not see so many mistakes being made.
I also want to ask the Minister about paragraph 7.2 of the explanatory memorandum, which states:
“Our assessment of the risks is not fundamentally changed by new Variants of Concern.”
And that is it—no context, no additional information. That surely cannot be the Government’s position; it does not seem consistent with what has been said previously. Perhaps the statement was meant to be in the preceding paragraph in the explanatory memorandum, which sets out the road map test, but it has been published in that way, so I think it is important for the record that the Minister sets out whether that is the case and it has been produced in error.
I move on to the regulations themselves. On the measures relating to elections, the Minister outlined that the regulations amend the face-covering regulations and the all-tiers regulations to make provision for voting in polls and to ensure that supporting activities—campaigning in the normal way, and nominations; Members will of course be familiar with those—can take place in the weeks preceding the polls in a way that, as we obviously all want, reduces and minimises the risk of transmission but enables meaningful campaigning to take place.
We support these measures because they are needed to make polling stations and campaigning safe, which is essential to the democratic process. It is therefore only right that there are exemptions to the stay-at-home guidance to allow the electoral process to take place. There have been concerns that the rules around leafleting were not particularly clear. Some people have argued that they would come under volunteering exemptions when leafleting, but of course some people are actually paid to deliver leaflets as part of their election work, which would come under a work exemption. We are grateful for the clarity provided on that.
It is vital that elections are delivered safely and securely, without voters being forced to choose between their health and their right to vote. However, it is a disappointment that the Government have been too slow to adapt in making the necessary changes to protect our democratic process.
The Opposition have called for new voting methods to be introduced, such as all-postal voting or voting over multiple days, to ensure safe social distancing. Unfortunately, the Government’s most radical idea to deal with this is for people to bring their own pencil, which I do not think really does the challenge justice. Having once been elected to a local council through an all-postal ballot, I have seen that elections can be held in that way, safely and securely, and indeed can increase turnout, so why has that option not been considered on this occasion?
Under the proposed arrangements, there are also concerns about how cash-strapped councils will be able to deliver the elections safely without extra financial support. Councils have expressed deep concern about the availability of polling venues, with the Government obviously insisting that schools are not used on this occasion. There are challenges in the recruitment of polling and counting staff, with so many workers needed on other duties. Of course, the demographic of that group tends to be older and may therefore be more vulnerable to the virus. I will be grateful if the Minister can give us an update on how the Government plan to address those particular challenges.
On staff working in polling stations, it is not at all clear from the regulations whether the polling stations will be covid secure and whether mask wearing will be enforced where necessary. The regulations have a little bit of a dichotomy in them: they seem to simultaneously create a right to enter a polling station without a mask at the same time as creating a requirement to wear face coverings in polling stations.
I understand that the regulations are necessary to ensure that the balance is struck, enabling people to exercise their right to vote safely. I am not excluding people who might not be able to wear a face covering for legitimate medical reasons, but the regulations appear to face both ways at the same time. I hope that the Minister will tell us that detailed guidance will be available to local authorities; I am sure it will be clear to all Members, who will be familiar with elections, that where there are all-out elections, resources will be stretched. I question how practical it will be for these regulations to be enforced properly in those circumstances.
I will just say a few words about the census. The regulations rightly provide for community centres, which otherwise might be closed, to reopen for the purposes of facilitating online access for those who cannot fill out the census. It is fair to say that Opposition Members have expressed deep concern that the upcoming census will be negatively affected by the covid pandemic, which will potentially have the unfortunate effect of skewing funding for the next decade. There is no doubt that the pandemic has changed the shape and layout of the UK population—probably temporarily, but the census is the baseline for many future decisions.
We know, for example, that many students have moved home, and that young professionals have moved out of cities to live with their parents, continuing to work from home there. Indeed, the Scottish Government have chosen to delay their census by a year to address those concerns. Will the Minister explain why it is necessary for our census to take place now? Does she anticipate any impact on the accuracy of the data and resource allocation in years to come?
I will say a few words about the travel forms. As the Minister said, the instrument amends the all-tiers regulations to require a travel declaration form to be completed and presented to a relevant person when that is directed, with the relevant person having the power to direct someone to return to where they live if they fail to produce a form. The regulations also make it an offence to contravene the requirement to produce a declaration of travel form. A fixed-penalty notice of up to £200 is potentially available for failing to complete the travel form correctly or failing to present it to a relevant person when directed to. The regulations also provide that information presented in those forms cannot be used as evidence against individuals in criminal proceedings outside the scope of the all-tiers regulations.
Under current lockdown rules, anyone who wants to travel internationally from England can do so only for limited reasons, including work, education or medical grounds. As we know, foreign holidays for people in England will not be permitted before 17 May at the earliest, as set out by the Prime Minister in his road map. I understand that the form requires those intending to take a trip to fill in their personal details and tick a box indicating the purpose of the travel outside the country.
The Department for Transport has said that the police have been increasing patrols at ports and airports in recent weeks and will have the power to ask travellers to produce a completed form. They are obviously a “relevant person” within the scope of the regulations, but can the Minister provide us with further information as to what other relevant people might be within the scope of the regulations? I particularly want to understand whether the form has to be produced if requested and whether every single person leaving the UK will be checked. Alternatively, is it a random process that will be applicable only when a police officer happens to be in attendance?
We know there is extensive guidance on the permitted reasons for travel and that there is a fixed-penalty notice for providing false or misleading information on the form. Some might argue that £200 is quite a small sum compared with the fines potentially available for people not completing the correct details on entry to the UK. My concern is about how realistic it will be for these relevant persons to be able to undertake the kind of investigation necessary to establish whether false or misleading information has been provided on the form. Let us not forget that fixed-penalty notices are usually issued on the spot.
At an airport, for example, the relevant person will examine the form and ask a few cursory questions. If no form is produced, that is a clear situation, but where exactly is the line going to be drawn if that relevant person is not convinced that the reasons on the form are genuine?
There will be grey areas as well. What if someone wants a week away in the sun and they arrange a business meeting in Dubai for 20 minutes, and then spend the rest of their time sitting around and relaxing? Are they breaking the rules? When it comes to the people sent home—or, to use the language of the instrument, directed
“to return to where they live”—
who is meant to check whether they do return home, and what are the consequences for them if they do not? There does not seem to be anything in the regulations to address that situation.
It will certainly be of interest to see how the rules work in practice and whether they are as effective as we would want them to be. As we have already covered, the rules have been in effect since Monday. Is the Minister able to update us on what impact that has had on the numbers of people travelling abroad? How many people have been asked to produce a form? How many have been sent home and how many have been issued with a fixed-penalty notice? If she does not have that information—I appreciate it is early days—will she set it out in writing to me when she has the detail?
In relation to international travel, we know that the global travel taskforce is due to report on 12 April. After the mess we have seen with hotel quarantine and the Government’s failure to secure our borders, it is vital that the Government look not only at people leaving the country, but those returning or arriving, to make sure that we have the most secure borders possible. If the Minister can update us on that review, I will be grateful.
There is one last item. The regulations also provide that students can return home once before 29 April 2021 and they have been able to return to their student accommodation since 8 March. I have a few questions about that—not least because I have several young people living with me at the moment, who will be most interested to learn what the future holds for them. Do the regulations in effect mean that all students who intend to return to their university accommodation should do so by 29 April? One could assume that after that date there will be fewer restrictions on travel, but is that the current position? As I am sure the Minister will understand, not only I but many others in my household will be interested to know the answer.
Finally, the original all-tiers regulations provide that there is to be a review of the tiers at least once every 28 days. Can the Minister confirm whether those reviews are happening and whether we can actually see them? The regulations on restrictions, which have been in place in some form or other for over 12 months now, have always had a regular review mechanism in them. But despite repeated questioning, it never appears that we can actually see what the reviews say.
Why is that? Does the Minister not accept that it is of great national interest that we should be able to see how the reviews of the restrictions are going? Is it not important for people to be able to judge for themselves the progress being made? Again, it seems unfortunate that scrutiny and accountability are not at the forefront of the Government’s mind when it comes to these regulations.
Jo Churchill
I thank the hon. Gentleman for once again laying out some challenges around the timing, and in his speech he articulated very well what the challenge is: he flipped from wanting to look backwards at the same point where he wanted to look forwards several months. I will go through the issues that he raised to the best of my ability. As he said, many are only newly in train; I commit to write to him on the three or four issues that he raised.
Arguably, the point of the road map is that it is a cautious unlocking and a sustainable path out of the lockdown. The devolved Administrations are setting out how it will be eased in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and we recognise the impact that restrictions thus far have had. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman also would, which is why there is an argument for making sure that things are dealt with at the right speed.
Allowing people to meet one member of another household outside and allowing individuals to gain support for childcare reasons or for finding or attending work must all be positive steps forward. As I said, by taking a cautious approach we are going to protect the NHS and the social care system, making sure that we are on a sustainable footing and that things are iterative.
When it comes to the challenge of timing, we are on a continuum. The SI today covers not only things that have already become available to people, but things in the future. The hon. Gentleman said that there had been 12 months’ notice of the elections being changed, but he would surely agree that we have spoken many times, both in the Chamber and Committee, about how challenging forecasting is. The journey with the covid pandemic has been very iterative. By laying out how we see the elections taking place and by opening up on 8 March and 29 March, we have given a very clear set of instructions about what people can do.
Guidance on elections has been issued by the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution; as the hon. Gentleman knows, the issue does not sit within my portfolio. I am sure that he will make himself aware of that guidance in due course. On polling stations, we have been in contact with local authorities. The hon. Gentleman is right that there is a challenge. There are people who are quite rightly exempt from wearing masks. I think it was the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) who came to me with a constituent of his who finds it very difficult to wear a face mask. We have worked to try to show that there are exemptions, and people who are exempt should not be challenged; they should be allowed to go about their business.
However, there are also those who may enter the polling station having forgotten a mask, so we have been in contact with local authorities. We will provide them with free face masks so that they can enable people to vote safely if it is a matter of the masks having been forgotten. Finally, there will be people not working with us on the regulations, but we should not restrict them from casting their democratic vote. There has to be a balance.
I move on from polling stations. The census is important. The hon. Gentleman said that the Opposition would have done much more, but I would gently say that they did not do those things up to 2010. We are going to do the census because it is important that we understand where people are. As he rightly says, people have changed some of their habits, and people now live and work in different parts of the country. It is important that we have the regular drumbeat of a census.
I am sure that the Minister for Universities will be well aware that there are young people who—with no disrespect to the hon. Gentleman’s household, which I am sure is a happy one—would rather be living in their student digs. She is obviously making more information available on that.
On the declaration of travel forms, as the hon. Gentleman said it is very early. I would also gently say that we would not consider a holiday a suitable reason for travel, so we are not dealing with a proliferation of the forms, but I will write to him, as I will do on point 2 about the ramifications of the rectifications. I will also clarify that for him.
We have introduced a new fixed-penalty notice for failure to complete the declaration of travel forms. Just as the passenger locator form works coming in, there is an element of trust, but in that particular case the carrier is also responsible for ensuring that somebody going on to their onward nation, if that is a red route, goes into a quarantine hotel, and if it is an amber route, has an onward place to go and isolate.
Enforcement agencies will use fixed-penalty notices as a last resort. We will use the “engage, encourage, educate, enforce” approach, because we cannot always guarantee that people have avoided something belligerently; perhaps they were just not aware of the situation. On vaccine passports, I cannot put it better than the hon. Gentleman did. We all await the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to come back to us on 12 April with more information.
I thank everyone for the sacrifices that each and every one of us has made in our families and in our lives, keeping ourselves and our loved ones and others safe. Our road map reaffirms our commitment to protect citizens of the UK and provide a credible route out of lockdown.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place and Restrictions: All Tiers) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 247).
Westminster Hall
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Passenger Boats and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will be suspensions between debates. I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive at the start of the debate in Westminster Hall, and Members are expected to remain for the entire debate. I remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times, both to one another and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and before they leave the room. I call Andrew Rosindell to move the motion—and happy birthday.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of passenger boats and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.
Thank you very much, Dame Angela, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on this St Patrick’s day. What a great day to have this debate. It is also Montserrat day. Mr Speaker is flying the flag of Montserrat from New Palace Yard, which is the first time ever that the flag of an overseas territory has been flown from the Palace of Westminster. Happy Montserrat day and happy St Patrick’s day to one and all.
I have served in the House now for 20 years. Also, I have served as the MP for my home constituency of Romford, which is and always has been a proud part of the county of Essex, while of course bordering on and with very close links to the capital city of London. As an MP within the authority area of the London Borough of Havering, located on the Thames estuary, I am all too conscious of the role that our great River Thames has played in our nation’s history, and the role that it will undoubtedly play in our future. To the east of London, the River Thames has once again become crucial for our trade, and in central and west London it continues to play a hugely important role for tourism and the London leisure economy.
I enthusiastically welcome the new Thames freeport, where thousands of new jobs will be created close to my Romford constituency, serving Romford, Havering, east London and the whole of the south-west Essex area. That is a piece of great news that we can celebrate today.
The River Thames is our river. It belongs to us in this region of the United Kingdom, whether we are from London, Essex, Kent, Surrey, Middlesex, Berkshire or beyond, and it must always be a river that the people of this region of our country are able to use for business, travel and pleasure. [Interruption.] Yes, I should perhaps have mentioned Oxfordshire as well, although today’s debate is more about the use of the River Thames in the more central part of London. But I assure the Minister that I had not forgotten Oxfordshire.
Many of my constituents rely on the Thames for their livelihoods and careers. They are highly skilled, and keen that a fair, competitive and safe working environment is maintained on the river, both for them and for future generations. As we go further upriver into central London and beyond Westminster, there is—as Members will know, because in normal times we see it alongside Parliament every day—a vibrant river-based tourism industry, whereby visitors to London and tourists can enjoy a unique boat trip along the Thames.
That is one of the issues I want to address today. I will explain why proposals from the Government’s Maritime and Coastguard Agency for London’s older passenger boats threaten to put this all at risk. As they stand, the plans are, I believe, disproportionate, inflexible and unfair. They risk forcing up to 25 popular and safe older passenger boats off the River Thames. I am grateful for the Minister’s letter on Monday that set out a determination to proceed with the plans, but I will now set out my very real concerns, which are shared by many Members on both sides of the House.
The MCA first proposed changes to the rules that govern passenger boats operating in category C tidal waters, such as the tidal Thames, three years ago. They are known as grandfather rights. The Thames, uniquely, is home to a large variety of safe, older passenger boats that operate in different parts of the river, based on their target tourist market and suitability. Each year, in normal times, they safely carry hundreds of thousands of passengers both on scheduled services such as the hugely popular and historic Westminster to Kew Gardens and Hampton Court summer service, or on private charter work such as evening parties and functions. As well as the many direct skilled jobs that those services retain, they also indirectly support the Thames boatyards and key tourist attractions, such as Kew Gardens, Hampton Court and London’s night-time economy, all of which have suffered terribly because of a year of lockdowns. They are essential in helping to deliver recovery.
In recent years, because of the growth of the fast and large Uber Thames Clipper fleet of boats, many of the older passenger boats on the Thames have chosen to operate in the less congested upriver areas of the tidal Thames, in the area west of Westminster pier. That will become more attractive as the large, river-reliant infrastructure projects, such as the Northern line extension at Battersea and the Tideway tunnel, are finished and the large tug and barge flows connected with those projects come to an end.
In the Minister’s letter to me on Monday, he said that the determination to proceed with plans was based on “evidence of ship numbers, movements and incidents upriver of Westminster, particularly in Lambeth Reach.” May I ask the Minister to please write to me and detail each incident that the Department has considered and the criteria against which they have judged it appropriate to take those plans forward? That surely is crucial information to judge whether it has been the right decision.
The MCA plans contain some proposals that can be met and delivered by operators, despite their having no work since the pandemic struck last March, but the specific proposal for vessels on the tidal Thames to have to subdivide their hulls, fit new bulkheads and effectively totally rebuild their boats at the waterline is both economic suicide and effectively vessel ending. Known as the damage stability rule, it would slash the passenger-carrying capacity on vessels that were built on the Thames to operate on the Thames and would cost hundreds of thousands of pounds per boat.
Consequently, owners will not be borrowing money to make their boats unfit for purpose—of course not. These boats are owned and operated by family businesses whose ancestors have worked on the river for centuries. They are long-standing stakeholders in the river, and the MCA proposals will put them out of business and their boats and jobs will be lost—the last thing we want at this stage. We should be revitalising the industry, not crushing it. I therefore sincerely hope that the Minister will see the need for at least some flexibility, pragmatism and risk-led common sense, both to improve river safety and to keep the sector afloat.
I want to place on the record the significant cross-party opposition to the MCA’s subdivision plans for older Thames passenger boats. Excellent work has also been done on the matter by Lord West of Spithead, in the other place, as the Minister will know. There have been letters to Secretaries of State for Transport from more than 60 Members of Parliament—cross-party—including the hon. Members for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), who used to lead the Conservative group on the Greater London Authority, my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), and the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), the leader of the Liberal Democrats. The Minister will also know that many members of the London Assembly support the opposition to the proposals, and have raised objections and written to the Transport Secretary and his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). I understand that the Prime Minister has been made aware of the issue by his concerned west London constituents.
Importantly, the organiser of the 2012 Thames diamond jubilee pageant, Lord Salisbury, has also written in protest. One of the boats under threat from the MCA is the Connaught, which led the pageant and carried the Queen’s heralds, alongside Her Majesty’s own vessel. It was a special day for the River Thames, the Queen, the royal family and the whole country. Yet that boat is under threat from the proposal. Surely that cannot be right and there must be a reconsideration of the whole proposal. I hope that the Minister is starting to understand my horror at the implications. I ask him please to intervene and urgently review the Government’s position.
There is a key word that the MCA continues to use in promoting, and seeking to justify, its proposals. It says that the boats must be subdivided in the hull to make them safer. Safety is of course critical and must be proportionate across all modes of transport, particularly heritage transport. The Marchioness incident of 1989, which I am sure we all remember with great sadness, is sometimes cited by the MCA and the Minister in justifying the bans. However, that is not fair or valid. The Marchioness was the victim of a total and unforgivable lapse in navigational rules and standards, which caused it to strike and be sunk by a much larger vessel.
Importantly, in a letter on the subdivision issue to a Thames boatyard owner in September 2019, the chief executive officer of the Port of London Authority wrote: “I fully accept that such a change would in all probability have had minimal impact on the tragic outcome of the Marchioness collision.” That point is an important contribution. River skills, route knowledge, quieter and lower-risk waters, and the best possible training are key for the future of the Thames, alongside a viable and credible compromise that I want to set out for the benefit of the Minister and his Department.
I note that the MCA has told the Thames boat operators that it wants to update them on its plans on 14 April. I hope that the debate can help us to make some progress on that. The Minister is aware of the careful thought and consideration that have gone into the compromise proposal for the older Thames passenger boats, which is that they should be restricted to the Thames west of Westminster pier, with the use of the pier itself, without the need for the subdivision. In our virtual call with the Minister on November 2, Lord West explained how operators were prepared to limit their operations from this point, and concentrate their navigation in the less congested areas of lower operational risk along the river. Indeed, many of the boats were built to operate in the upper tidal reaches of the Thames, with their shallow draft and low deck profiles.
This solution would achieve four important goals. First, river authorities would know where older passenger boats were operating at any one time, given their new zonal restrictions alongside already being on the automatic identification system. Secondly, no older passenger boat would be forced off the Thames and would be able to play its part in bringing tourists and visitors back to the river after the covid restrictions, and help meet the Transport for London, Port of London Authority and Greater London Authority ambitions to significantly grow river passengers over the next 15 years, particularly upriver. Thirdly, the boats would continue to support the important Thames boatyards and skills supply chain, which means jobs would not be lost and yards closed. Fourthly, we would avoid the MCA’s earlier plans to issue exemptions only if individual boats can successfully clear their future risk assessment test, the criteria for which have never been published or released.
I foresee a real risk of bureaucratic and legal quagmire here. As the Minister knows, the upper tidal Thames has full and fast Royal National Lifeboat Institution cover as well. There are many issues that I do not believe have been fully addressed in the current proposals. That is why the Minister simply has to take this seriously and change the current projection and policy. It is crucial that we strike a pragmatic and proportionate balance for operators and safety. This lower operational risk solution will deliver this, without forcing anyone out of business or losing any of these key and safe assets from the river.
If the Minister will not change direction, will he discuss with the operators what compensation they will be offered for the forced loss of their income and their businesses, as well as the considerable devaluation of their assets? He needs to address this directly. If he pushes ahead, he has to consider what he is doing to the livelihoods and the businesses that will be affected. The Government will have to pay huge sums of money to compensate for the damage this policy will do. That could all be avoided if he reviews this policy today.
The Thames has changed considerably in the last 20 years, and it is great to see so many people using it for leisure and commuter travel. As it has grown in importance and popularity, the need for services to be carefully regulated and monitored is all too clear, as is the importance of preventing any anti-competitive practices or unfair situations, which I fear have been allowed to develop. That is a further angle to this.
As the Minister knows, I am increasingly concerned by reports from my constituents that the company tasked with delivering the river’s commuter boats, Uber Thames Clippers, has been abusing its dominant market position and enjoying unfair advantages, which in turn unfairly undermines other operators on the river. I wrote to him about this last year and he replied, asking to be kept informed.
Since 1999, Transport for London has made provision for a dedicated scheduled river boat commuter service, now called Uber Thames Clippers, which is regulated by TfL, under the responsibility of the Mayor of London. Clippers run services between Putney and east London in normal times, in the morning and evening commuter peaks and throughout the day. Consequently, in normal times they carry hundreds of thousands of tourists and visitors. It seeks to attract them with prominent marketing. Uber Thames Clippers is therefore not only a commuter service; it is also a tourist service.
For this daytime tourist offering, Uber Thames Clippers enjoys many commercial advantages as a result of arrangements with TfL that are not enjoyed by competing scheduled Thames tourist boat operators. That simply is not fair. It is this point that I wish to explain. I have written to the Deputy Mayor for Transport in London twice, and my colleague in the Greater London Assembly, the Assembly Member for my own borough of Havering, Keith Prince, is also taking these matters up in the GLA and asking probing questions of the Mayor of London, but no answers have been given; this matter is unresolved. A future investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority may now be necessary, and I ask the Minister to address this point.
The key issue is that Uber Thames Clippers does not have to pay landing fees at busy central TfL-owned peers such as Westminster, Tower of London, Greenwich and Bankside, when its boats disembark and pick up tourist passengers during the day, but its scheduled competitors do. These costs run into hundreds of thousands of pounds every year, which Uber Thames Clippers avoids but its rivals—the traditional operators—still have to pay. That cannot be fair, it cannot be right and it is uncompetitive, and the Minister must intervene to end this unfairness.
TfL has explained how and why it justifies and maintains having one rule for one tourist operator and one for another. I have constituents who work on the Thames and have to endure the unfair competition and unacceptable distortion. I want to know how it is justified by the Mayor and what Transport Ministers might be minded to do, in line with the Competition Act 1998, given the unfair practices being maintained by a body, in TfL, that has received billions of pounds in public support.
All the operators ask for is a level playing field, so that when they compete with Uber Thames Clippers for tourist passengers outside of commuter times, they all pay the same pier fees. At the moment, Uber Thames Clippers enjoys an unfair market advantage, which is being maintained and defended by the Mayor and TfL. Will the Minister tell the House what the Government can now do to bring more scrutiny and attention to this disturbing issue, especially when the Mayor and TfL have been given billions in taxpayer support over the last year alone? Does he think a CMA inquiry might be an option for consideration?
The future of London is intrinsically tied up with the future of the River Thames. It is the liquid highway, and it has again become key to how we enjoy this great city and to creating jobs, growing the city and showcasing it to the world as part of our new global Britain. Everything must be done to prevent and remove any bad policy, plan or failing situation that threatens to disproportionately undermine those who rely on it for their business or the public’s ability to enjoy it, especially as we come out of the pandemic and look again to the river for some peace, fulfilment and enjoyment. I therefore hope that the Minister will answer my points and provide real assurances to those who want to help ensure that our wonderful River Thames recovers after this bleak period in our history and resumes its historic role of helping Londoners to work, with key services provided on the river in a fair, pragmatic and safe environment.
I conclude on this St Patrick’s day by paying tribute to the vital part that our Irish friends have played in the history of the River Thames over many centuries. I draw the House’s attention to the important contribution of Irish workers, particularly the vital part they played in building the Thames tunnel between 1825 and 1843, which has a special place in British history as the first tunnel built under a navigable river anywhere in the world. The workers spent long shifts digging the 700-foot tunnel in treacherous conditions that would lead to the death of six during the course of its construction. These workers were predominantly Irish migrants who moved to London in the 19th century to find work, and who created a significant piece of London’s history. It is important that their work and achievement should be remembered, and I can think of no better day on which to do that than this St Patrick’s day.
Dame Angela, Minister, colleagues, let us celebrate the central part our River Thames has played in the lives of our people, our capital and our nation, and seek to ensure that it may go on doing so for many centuries to come.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Angela. I congratulate the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on his presentation and on doing it so well. I wish all hon. Members here in this Westminster Hall sitting and elsewhere a very happy St Patrick’s day. It is a pleasure to come and speak today.
It is good to remind ourselves, as the hon. Gentleman did, that those who built the Thames tunnel were Irish migrants. We should thank them—many from Northern Ireland, and many from the Republic of Ireland—for their contribution to this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
As you probably know, Dame Angela, and as others will know as well, they say that if St Patrick turns the stone the right way up on St Patrick’s day—in other words, if it is dry and sunny, as it is outside—that probably means that we will have good weather between now and the summertime. I hope that is the case.
I wish the hon. Member for Romford many happy returns. He is an Aries, I think—
Jim Shannon
Sorry. I am an Aries—I am not that far away. Again, I wish the hon. Gentleman many happy returns.
The title of this debate is very clear and specific, and I will come to it specifically, but I would like to make some general comments to start with, and I would also like to talk about river ferries at the end. I have to take this opportunity to discuss a massive issue for my constituency. Some of the context in my constituency will tie in with some of the things the hon. Gentleman has referred to.
As we are all aware, Northern Ireland is a landlocked nation in the UK, and, as the Northern Ireland protocol has shown very clearly, landlocking brings its own problems. I am not going to talk about the Northern Ireland protocol—that is not appropriate, Dame Angela, and I know you would bring me into line and correct me if I did—but I just wanted to make that point and then say how it features within this debate.
The onus on hauliers and shipping is massive, and any issue or problem with this route affects the supply of basic goods to Northern Ireland. The passenger ferries from Larne to Cairnryan, where some of the problems we have seen have occurred, or the other ferry services, do not simply ensure free movement of people—they carry our necessities. The issue for ferries, for water travel, is so specific, and it ties in well with this debate about the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the future of passenger boats.
Coronavirus has seen a massive impact on our connectivity, and understandably so. However, what must be understood is that this has wider connotations for GB-NI trade, which must be protected at all costs. The waterways are not simply a way for tourists to travel, although having travelled on the Thames on a few occasions with my wife, with other family members and individually, I can understand its attraction and that of maritime boats—it is similar in my constituency, which many people visit to experience the landscape and the warmest welcome—but the waterways are also a way of feeding people.
Over the last four Sunday evenings, Strangford has featured in “Bloodlands”—a drama programme that has given James Nesbitt fairly great prominence. When my wife and I were watching it on television, we were not as intrigued by the drama and the story as we were by trying to work out which part of Strangford lough it was set in and whose farm we were seeing. I can identify with that.
Let me turn to the main thrust of the debate, which is the replacement of boats that are older and that may need attention. The hon. Member for Romford referred to how important that is, and I want to give another example from my constituency. Old is not always not good, and it is important we recognise that. The hon. Gentleman referred to providing grants and help for small boats. We have done that in Northern Ireland; it was in a different sector, but the same principle applies, and that is what I want to refer to.
The fishing fleet in Portavogie is between 45 and 48 years old. It was decided that massive rebuilds had to take place to bring it up to safety standards. Any seaman or fishing person in Portavogie would say that they would take their sturdy, old, seaworthy boat over the new and improved one any day, any time. The Government and, most of all, the Northern Irish Assembly, through the fisheries Department, have made sure that grant in aid is available for that. I know that we are in a difficult time with covid, and that resources are minute, so that is not always a possibility, but the Minister might want to look at the issue.
While it is undoubted that any passenger ferry must be to a high standard and safe, that is not to say that we must discard the older boats. As one who is feeling this more and more, let me say that sometimes the old things can be the best things, and it is important to put that on record as well.
I share the concerns of many about the impact on services, should the requirements be implemented to the full. I will certainly be asking the Minister to listen carefully to those whose livelihoods and trade depends on these boats—the hon. Member for Romford has referred to them, and I am here to support him in his request to the Minister and in what he wants to bring about.
Safety can go hand in hand with this lively and wonderful internationally recognised service. Without a doubt, when people come to London for a few days, as I do every week, or for a break, one of the things they have to do is travel on a boat—one of those leisure cruises—and enjoy the scenery and the water.
In my constituency, there are thriving private fishing and leisure boat business. We have excellent fishing in Strangford lough and the Irish Sea. Those businesses thrive because the opportunity to catch fish is there, but also because there is something really exciting about doing that. I am not sure whether we have the same ability to do that in the Thames, or whether there is a thriving fishing sector—or angling sector, I should say—but, if there is, it would certainly be another thing to look at.
Again, while safety is paramount—it has to be, and it must be upheld—we also have to look at how we can improve some of the older boats. I have spoken to people regarding this debate and comments by the hon. Gentleman about the Thames and the area. I find myself agreeing with a number of MPs, and especially the hon. Member for Romford, who introduced the debate, as well as with others who are looking at this debate from afar—I have spoken to some of them as well, and although they are not here today, they have a similar opinion to the hon. Gentleman.
I will just quote from the Evening Standard:
“The operators are SMEs and family-run businesses which have worked on the river for generations. The double whammy of covid and these unnecessary MCA proposals will do potentially terminal damage to London’s maritime heritage, river jobs and tourism. They should be changed so that no boats are forced off the river and the sector can recover.”
I know that the Conservative party—and, in fairness, the Labour party as well—is committed to ensuring that small and medium-sized enterprises can be protected, and that the self-employed have opportunities. If ever there was a time to do that, it is now. Perhaps in his response the Minister can give us some assurance that SMEs will be protected in legislation. I know that the Minister and the Government have done that and continue to do that, but we need that assurance today.
I support the Evening Standard in its call. I truly believe that we can see these boats being safely used and upgraded in a methodical and financial manner that does not close businesses down, but that, as with the changes to fishing vessels in my constituency, where this happened, subsidises them with grants, guides them and enhances them. This is not the time to be putting unbearable financial pressure on any aspect of tourism. In my constituency, tourism is vital—it is the key theme of Ards and North Down Borough Council and Strangford as well. I ask the Minister to review the mechanism and timing of these proposals.
In conclusion, these boats are a wonderfully visual aspect of tourism and must be safe and protected. We can do these things differently, and the hon. Member for Romford referred to that. I ask the Minister to review this issue once more, with a post-covid view and perhaps with a slightly different perspective.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) [V]
It is pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Angela, for today’s debate on the future of passenger boats and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. I wish the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) a happy birthday, and I thank him and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for their contributions. I wish all hon. Members a happy St Patrick’s day.
Although small in number, the contributions to the debate have been wide-ranging, covering many aspects of marine passenger travel, from the future of travel and the use of the Thames, to the Larne and Cairnryan sea link, to which farm is owned by whom on the banks of Strangford lough.
As the Member of Parliament for Argyll and Bute, which boasts 26 islands and probably has more passenger ferries than any other UK constituency, I could not speak in this debate. The passenger ferries, whether they are operated by CalMac, Argyll and Bute Council or Western Ferries, are a critical lifeline to our rural communities. I want to highlight some of the enormous contribution made by all of those who work on the boats every day of the year, providing an essential, sometimes lifeline, service to thousands of people and hundreds of small communities on dozens of remote islands. I would like to put on record my sincere thanks to every single one of them.
By far the biggest ferry operator in the west of Scotland is CalMac, the legendary Caledonian MacBrayne, which sails to more than 30 destinations across the west of Scotland. For more than a century, the distinctive black and white boats, topped by a fiery red funnel, have connected Scotland’s islands to the mainland, ensuring that, despite the worst weather that could be thrown at them, the remote communities are served and regularly supplied, and that islanders are able to come and go freely.
In my constituency, CalMac operates 18 different routes, connecting the islands of Mull, Iona, Islay, Bute, Tiree, Coll, Colonsay, Lismore, Gair and Kerrera to the Scottish mainland. It is not just island communities that are served in that way. CalMac plays a hugely important role in linking remote mainland towns and villages to the centre of Scotland, including Dunoon, Creagan, Campbeltown and Tarbert.
For so many of my constituents, ferries are not just something they take to go on holiday; they are the lifeline that brings food, drink, parcels, the post, the daily newspapers, building materials and vital medical supplies. Although CalMac is undoubtedly the largest ferry company, I also recognise and pay tribute to the year-round contribution made by those working on Argyll and Bute Council-operated ferries between Port Appin and Lismore, Cuan and Luing, Ellenabeich and Easdale, and Port Askaig and the Isle of Jura.
A huge and important contribution is also made by Western Ferries, which operates the car ferry that ploughs the Firth of Clyde between Hunters Quay and Gourock. If I look out of my window right now I can see Western Ferries boats crossing the Firth of Clyde on one of their multiple daily journeys.
Not only do these operators serve local communities; they are also part of the communities they serve. They do so much good to improve the area and the general wellbeing of so many communities. I would like to make special mention of four CalMac employees in Oban who last month raised thousands of pounds to support one their colleagues, Megan, who had experienced a particularly difficult time in her life. Nicky MacKechnie, Alan MacInnes, Ian Rodgers and Keith MacMillan launched a charity exercise regime called Megan’s Miles. It had an initial target of raising £500 for the Scottish Association for Mental Health, but by last night they and their colleagues at the CalMac terminal at Oban had raised more than £8,000. I am sure colleagues from across the House will want to congratulate them on that magnificent effort in support of one of their colleagues; it is a very worthwhile cause. Although Nicky, Alan, Ian and Keith may not be unique, they serve as a good example of the people who keep these essential services running. Those services belong to, and are an integral part of, the communities they serve.
There is no doubt in my mind that without CalMac and the other services, those communities would struggle to survive. Despite the challenging circumstances in which we find ourselves, the Scottish Government are, and have been, absolutely committed to supporting and improving the ferry network by implementing a long-term, positive, sustainable series of policies to connect our rural communities to the mainland, thereby boosting local economies and creating employment opportunities.
The SNP Scottish Government recognise the essential role that passenger ferries play in supporting our island communities. That is why, since coming to power in 2007, they have invested £2.2 billion in the Clyde and Hebrides ferry service, the Northern Isles ferry services and general infrastructure, as part of our commitment to promoting Scotland’s islands and remote communities. The Scottish Government recognise the important role played by CalMac and others in connecting those communities to the centre, and they have put in place measures to make it easier and cheaper for islanders to travel to the mainland and for visitors to go to the islands.
In 2008, the Scottish Government introduced a pilot scheme called the road equivalent tariff. The principle of RET was essentially that ferry fares should be set on the basis of travelling the equivalent distance by road, and that island communities should face no financial disadvantage. At the same time, it promoted Scotland’s beautiful Western Isles as a great place to live, work, stay, raise a family, invest, conduct business and, of course, visit and spend a fortnight’s holiday.
It is absolutely right that any scheme that is funded, as RET is, to the tune of £25 million a year be rigorously and robustly scrutinised, so I was pleased that, earlier this week, with almost precision timing for today’s debate, Transport Scotland delivered its official evaluation of RET on the Clyde and Hebrides network. It is a large and interesting read—it runs to more than 80 pages. It examines in detail the roll-out and impact of RET on local communities, island infrastructure, the local economy, the environment and the all-important tourism sector.
The report took as its measure the original objectives that the Scottish Government set out to achieve when RET was introduced. They are increased demand, increased tourism and enhancing local economies. The Transport Scotland report shows that the demand for ferries has increased. Almost all routes have shown an increase, with a significantly higher number of residents and visitors using the Clyde and Hebrides service than before RET was introduced. Across the network as a whole, it is estimated that the average fare paid by passengers and car users has dropped by between 34% and 40%. That, in return, has made an overall positive contribution to local economies.
Of course, the report makes it clear that the scheme is not perfect. Nothing ever could be when dealing with a large transport network that connects hundreds of communities in the often windswept north Atlantic. There are problems—some predictable, others not—that have arisen since the introduction of the scheme. Among them, the popularity of RET has put added pressure on the already fragile road infrastructure in many of the islands. A lack of public toilets, camping facilities and chemical waste disposal has been highlighted, and increased visitor traffic has made travel for islanders wishing to leave far more challenging, as spaces on the car deck are booked up well in advance of sailing.
The long-term signs are that the upward trend in people visiting the islands will continue, and that will require significant new investment in boats, services and port infrastructure. That said, there is a broad consensus that the introduction and roll-out of the road equivalent tariff has been a very good thing for the islands, and I commend the Scottish Government for it.
Looking to the future, there can be no doubt that improved physical connectivity, coupled to advancements in digital connectivity, has a vital role in reversing the depopulation trend that we are unfortunately seeing across our island communities. Allowing people to live safely and securely in remote island communities must form a major part of any Government’s strategic thinking, and of course, better, more reliable, environmentally friendly ferries have a role to play. However, in and of themselves, they are not the answer.
I urge the Scottish Government and others to consider the bold, innovative approach taken by our neighbours in the Faroes, whose Government have combined a ferry network with a system of subsea tunnels. I was fortunate to visit the Faroes in 2019, to visit the Ministry that overseas these large infrastructure projects, and to stand on the Eysturoy tunnel during its construction—11 km long, connecting three islands by means of the world’s first subsea roundabout. It is a remarkable feeling to stand 5 km offshore, 190 metres below the Atlantic, watching them cutting and blasting their way through the basalt rock. Of course, I understand that the Faroes are much smaller than Scotland, but the scale of their ambition to connect people to the centre and reverse what people believed was an irreversible population decline is something to behold, and something we should all learn from.
Finally, I pay tribute again to the hon. Member for Romford for having secured this debate, and for the passionate and forensic way in which he laid out his case; I am sure the Minister will look forward to answering that. I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford for his, as always, telling and informative contribution, and I thank you, Dame Angela, for allowing me to put on record my appreciation for those who work so hard in Argyll and Bute and, indeed, across Scotland to provide that vital service that keeps our remote, rural and island communities connected to the Scottish mainland.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Dame Angela. I congratulate the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) and wish him a happy birthday on this St Patrick’s day, which he was very eloquent about. For those who cannot see the hon. Members for Romford and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), they have beautiful green ties on today, but the hon. Member for Romford has excelled by having matching coloured socks as well. I think the British public need to know that. I also thank him for his chairmanship of the Chagos islands (British Indian Ocean Territory) all-party parliamentary group, as I do on a regular basis, and the work he has put in over the years for that community. The small community that I represent in Wythenshawe and Sale East are very grateful for the work of that group.
Like Henry V before Harfleur, I was not angry before I came to this meeting, but when I heard about the Connaught, I became quite agitated. My parents emigrated from the great province of Connacht, from Leitrim and Roscommon, in the mid-1950s. They did not know each other in 1955; they met at a dance in Manchester, and married and moved out to the green pastures of Wythenshawe, where I came along a few years later. On this St Patrick’s day, I pay a particular tribute to my parents and my father, who was an Irish navvy and built the roads and the sewers of the north-west of England in his working life. As you well know, Dame Angela, I also play in the Fianna Phadraig pipe band—the warriors of Patrick—which celebrates its 73rd year this year in Wythenshawe, and I play in another musical ensemble called Lorica. A lorica is a poem that was used by warriors in the time of St Patrick—a poem on their breastplate to go into battle—and one of the lines in the lorica on St Patrick’s breastplate is
“God’s strength to pilot me”.
Listening to the hon. Member for Romford’s speech today, I thought that was an apt part that we should think about; a pearl of St Patrick’s wisdom that he gave us.
Today’s debate has focused on the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s proposed changes to grandfather rights for all passenger boats. It has particularly highlighted the thriving and—at least pre-covid—successful passenger boat businesses on the Thames. The Tony Robinson TV series, “The Thames” was particularly excellent at showing what a vital artery the Thames is for our whole nation—and in Oxfordshire, as well, for the record; I say that for the Minister. Members will have admired boat trips along this section. Just before lockdown, I had the pleasure of going to Kew Gardens on one of those boats. These historic boats, including 19th century ships and even some veterans of the Dunkirk evacuation, continue to provide safe and enjoyable experiences for tourists, all year round, year after year. I pay tribute to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency for the work it does and the exemplary safety standards on our rivers and coastal waters. It is of great importance to maintain that record, so I welcome the principle of upgrading the standards of vessels operating on rivers such as the Thames.
I join the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) in paying tribute to all ferry workers who have worked so hard during the pandemic. I am sure that view is shared by all Members. They have kept our vital supply lines open, externally to the United Kingdom, and internally. Life is tough at sea and on our waterways and they have done exemplary work. However, I think the sleep is beginning to fall from some voters’ eyes in Scotland; things are not quite as rosy with CalMac as the hon. Gentleman makes out. I am a huge user of CalMac ferries in my biannual holidays to either the Orkney Islands or the Western Isles. I see what is going on in Papa Westray and Westray, and on the ferries to Barra and other places. We know that there are huge problems with Scottish Ministers curtailing ferries to the Western Isles. There are huge rows about that. We know the CalMac fleet is ageing, because the Scottish Government have not invested in it over the last few years. There have been some terrible procurement problems with the SNP Government sourcing new ferries out of Port Glasgow. In particular, there are the contracts that doubled in value for two ferries; then they had to nationalise the shipbuilding yard. Governance of CalMac by the Scottish Government could be better and I hope we see that going forward.
I lend my support to the DFT’s review of Lord West of Spithead’s recommendations for the River Thames west of Westminster. I understand the Minister is currently exploring the review with officials. By allowing those businesses operating boats to continue to work upriver of Westminster pier, where traffic is much lower, Lord West’s plans may mitigate the risks, allowing these businesses and boats to continue working. While I am no expert on boat safety, I would like to note that the Port of London Authority support that plan as being within an acceptable level of risk. The proposed revisions to safety standards, especially affecting boat businesses on the Thames, have been a long time coming. The Minister will be aware that before our time covering this portfolio, there was considerable opposition to the implementation of these new regulations. The Mayor of London, MPs, Lords, GLA Members and businesses have also raised concerns about them. If enforced in their current form, they could wipe out an important part of London’s heritage.
Covid-19, having ravaged much of our economy and taken so much of our bandwidth, has not spared this sector. I ask the Minister to take away the feedback from today’s debate and show some urgency in concluding his deliberations. I hope that the Department and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency can find a proportionate response that allows these historic boats and vibrant businesses to continue to sail safely.
The hon. Member for Romford finished with a tribute, echoed by the hon. Member for Strangford, to Irish navvies, who built the Thames tunnel. On this St Patrick’s day, I think it apt that I finish with a lorica:
“Navigator, Navigator, rise up and be strong,
The morning is here and there’s work to be done,
With your pickaxe and your shovel and your old dynamite,
To shift a few tons of this earth by tonight.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I very much enjoyed the speech made by the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane). I am not entirely sure I can follow it; it was a very good speech that I listened to intently. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken today. I wish everyone a happy St Patrick’s Day and Montserrat Day, and wish my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) a happy birthday. We have paid tribute to everyone in those diverse communities across the UK today, from Romford to Strangford, and it is an honour to be a part of that celebration.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford on securing this important debate about passenger ship operations, particularly on the tidal River Thames. He is quite right to refer to it as a “liquid highway” connecting the country together. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East for having rightly pointed out to the House that it connects Oxfordshire. In fact, it forms the southern border of my constituency and is an artery through the entirety of southern England.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Romford in supporting the announcement of the Thames freeport. Given its location, it has the potential to become a national hub for international trade and commerce, and to attract business and jobs to the region. It reconnects us with our vibrant maritime history and reinforces our position as an outward looking trading nation.
My hon. Friend mentioned the competitiveness points that fall within the responsibility of the Mayor of London. Those matters are for the Mayor and Transport for London to address. I know he will continue to engage with the Mayor and he may question his management of London’s transport system, which has left a lot to be desired. My hon. Friend asked about scrutiny; he is doing a good job in providing that scrutiny himself, but I am happy to join him and write to the Mayor to raise those concerns as well.
I turn to the subject of passenger boats. I associate myself with the comments made by all hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara), who paid tribute to maritime workers across our wonderful United Kingdom and everything they have been doing to connect communities, particularly in the difficult circumstances of the pandemic.
I am sure the House will agree that safety must be a top priority for the Government when it comes to ship operations. Operators must ensure that ships are not only built but maintained and operated to maintain the safety of their passengers, their crews and other ships. There is a balance to be struck between safety and the right to trade and remain operationally viable. Ultimately, this is a matter of judgment of risk, and it comes down to having proportionate and appropriate safety measures. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford and I would entirely agree on that statement of principle. It is just a matter of where the balance falls.
It may be appropriate to spend a moment looking at the origins of the legislation that is proposed, which, as my hon. Friend points out, was the Marchioness incident. I hope the House will pardon me if I reflect on the tragic events of 20 August 1989, as the background may be helpful. Hon. Members will remember the deeply harrowing scenes of the Marchioness party boat after its collision with the Bowbelle dredger on the Thames around Southwark bridge. Tragically, 51 young people lost their lives that night. That tragic event prompted 30 years of debate about the general safety of passenger ships on our inland waterways, particularly those on the tidal River Thames. The proposals that we are considering spring from that tragic incident, rather than seeking to address an incident that had already taken place. That is an important distinction to make.
There were a number of drivers of change. There was a Marine Accident Investigation Branch recommendation. After Lord Justice Clarke’s Thames safety inquiry in 2000, he conducted an exercise and enhanced security arrangements were proposed. A number of improvements have taken place since 1989 to the emergency response and the operation of small passenger ships. For example, Her Majesty’s Coastguard now has a presence on the river, with the Port of London Authority, at the Thames barrier, the RNLI now has a presence on the river, and additional rescue equipment and safety aids are placed along the banks of the Thames to support people who may find themselves in the water.
Ship movements are closely monitored by the Port of London Authority, which is responsible for safe navigation using modern tracking systems. Ships have adopted better look out arrangements to reduce the risk of collision and training is better, as is the certification of crews. Additionally, ships built after 1992 must meet modern ship damage survivability standards. That is to keep them afloat in the event of an accident, either to get them back to shore under their own steam or to give time for passengers and crew to be rescued.
However, those modern standards have not thus far been applied to the older ships, which retain what are called grandfather rights, and that of course is the subject of today’s debate. But as waterways have become busier, so the concern about the safety of these ships has also grown. Some of the ships are very old and are heritage boats. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford is right to say that they should be treasured. The hon. Member for Strangford has paid tribute to them as well. I think his phrase was that the old can sometimes be the best. I think we would all agree with that sentiment. I totally understand the special place that these ships have in the hearts of many Members of this House and of the other place. I feel a lot of that sentiment myself.
Significantly, I also appreciate the concerns and representations from operators, who are concerned about being unable to continue in business if they are compelled to modify their ships to bring them into line with modern safety standards, particularly the damage stability requirements, which I will come to in a little more detail in a moment. Of course, that is all amplified by the pandemic. Therefore, we come to looking at the point of balance, which is perhaps the real issue in the debate today. There is an argument for saying that the safety record of the old passenger ships on the River Thames is good and therefore there is no need to introduce the new requirements. It is true that we have not seen an incident with loss of life similar to the Marchioness tragedy since that dreadful night in August 1989, but the difficult question is whether that is by design or whether it is simply a matter of good fortune, and it is that difficult question that we must ask ourselves when we are considering this matter.
Safety experts at the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the Port of London Authority are of the clear view that there has been too much reliance on continuing good fortune, and I would like to spend a moment or two explaining why that is. It is of note as background that, as I understand it, to this day the sister ship of the Marchioness continues to operate on the tidal River Thames. Evidence is inconclusive as to whether the measures proposed in the legislation would prevent an identical incident. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford may well be right; I think he made the point that perhaps they would not prevent an identical incident. But what I ask the House to consider is that that is not the right question, the question that we should be asking, because the relevant comparator is how quickly a vessel would sink were something—not necessarily that type of accident—to happen to it.
The Port of London Authority says that between 2010 and 2018 there were 1,192 accidents or incidents of varying severity along the Thames. I would like to give one example of what may have been just such a near miss. It is very appropriate: in 2008, the Millennium City hit Westminster bridge, literally outside this window here. It was pushed, as I understand it, by the tide and sustained an 8-foot gash to its side, below the waterline. We can never know what would have happened if a different vessel had been involved in that incident, but the expert opinion of the MCA is that, had it been one of the older passenger ships that did not meet the modern standards, it might well have sunk rapidly, with a considerable risk to life. Similarly, with regard to the Millennium Time collision in 2014 with the tug Redoubt, there would have been significant risk of an older vessel, covered by the grandfather rights, foundering.
The tidal Thames, the stretch of the river from Teddington Lock to the east, is complex in nature. It has varying depths and varying width. Other issues are its density, the make-up of the traffic on it, navigational hazards and environmental conditions. It is a tricky bit of river. The significant amount of large commercial traffic that operates on the Thames makes the risk of a collision unacceptably high, particularly in terms of a catastrophic collision between vastly different size ships, where the impact of the larger one overwhelms the smaller one. That mixture of heavy and light vessels also leads to congestion around bridges on the Thames. There is a mixture of tugs and barges with passenger ships and smaller craft. There is competition for berths at piers. That combination of risk factors necessitates the highest safety standards in ship construction, because if one of those older, unmodified ships were involved in an accident, it is likely that it would sink and lives would be lost.
It is against that background that the MCA legislation has been developed over several years. It has been the subject of a number of consultations and intense scrutiny, and there have also been a number of industry workshops. I accept that there is controversy surrounding it, and I totally accept that there is cross-party objection to it. That is why I met my hon. Friend the Member for Romford, as he kindly said, and others, so I have a first-hand understanding of it. The intention behind the legislation is to update the standards so that they are closer to those expected of modern ships. Passengers have a right to expect safety standards that appertain to the 21st century. That is probably what they expect, without a second thought, when they step on to a ship. My hon. Friend has asked for flexibility. I will come to that in a moment, but it is right to note that even under these revised proposals, older ships will have flexibility in how they comply.
It is important to note that, in addition to survivability in the event of damage, the proposals also cover safety improvements to life-saving equipment, firefighting and detection, bilge pumps and associated alarms. The most challenging part is the damage stability requirement and flexibility—better referred to as “damage survivability”, because that it is really means—and even there we have introduced a facility for an exemption. Owners will need to demonstrate, through a risk assessment, that their ships are operating in an area that presents a lower risk profile. That risk assessment will need to be agreed by the MCA and must not be opposed by the relevant navigation authority. My hon. Friend quite rightly mentioned the details. Some consultation has already taken place, but there will be time, between the laying of the legislation and its coming into force, to make clear the steps that those operators that wish to apply for an exemption will have to take.
I totally recognise that it may not be possible to modify some of the older ships to comply with modern stability standards. As I have said, we will undertake a risk-balancing exercise, whereby risk to life will be assessed alongside the safety standards—it is all a balance of risk, as hon. Members well understand. It seems to me that that is in the right place. Operators can either comply with the standards by modifying their ships, or apply for the exemption. I would suggest that that represents the flexibility referred to my hon. Members, and it is a compromise of sorts.
There has, of course, been a request for further compromise. I am hugely grateful to all hon. Members and Members of the other place for their constructive and expert engagement. I recognise the strength of feeling and thank them for that engagement. It is precisely because of that engagement that the MCA and the Department have considered in great detail whether there is a case for further compromise.
The MCA has carefully evaluated the option of not applying the damage stability requirements to ships that keep their operations to the west of Westminster Bridge, which it judges as being not acceptable from a safety perspective. That decision is based on ship numbers, movements and incidents upriver of Westminster, particularly in Lambeth Reach. My hon. Friend asked me to write to him with details, and I will of course enter into correspondence with him on the basis for that decision.
Although the level of maritime traffic may be less, the balance of risk means that it remains unacceptable to rely on a blanket exemption for small passenger ships. And it is, of course, the blanket exemption that my hon. Friend is asking for today. It is important to stress that that does not mean that exemptions are not possible, because operators can apply for an exemption, using the risk-assessment process to demonstrate that the arrangements for individual ships are safe and will protect the ship, its passengers and crew in the event of an accident. Proposals will allow operators an exemption from the new damage stability requirements if they demonstrate that they operate in an area of category C waters, which pose a lower operational risk. That risk assessment must be agreed by the MCA and not opposed by the relevant harbour authority.
I would not want to prejudge any risk assessment outcomes, but it may be that operators will struggle to show evidence that there is a lower operational risk in the vicinity of Westminster, for the reason I have outlined. There may be more scope to demonstrate a lower risk upriver of Chelsea, although of course everything will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
To sum up, the level of maritime traffic may be less in this part of the river, but the balance of risk means that it remains unacceptable to have a blanket exemption for small passenger ships. However, I believe that the flexibility and proportionality that my hon. Friend asks for is there, because it does not mean that no exemptions are possible; they just have to be approached in the right way in order to protect safety in the way that I have outlined.
I thank all hon. Members who have made representations about the safety of older passenger ships. My hon. Friend made a powerful speech. He spoke hugely compellingly on behalf of his constituents, those who use the river, and all the people who have raised the issue with him. They could ask for no better advocate. He has made powerful points, and I have great sympathy for many of them. However, as I have said, the question ultimately comes down to a matter of judgment on the basis of risk.
The Government’s position is that, when we look at the risk-assessed exemption present in the proposed legislation, we believe that it is no longer sufficient to rely on good fortune when dealing with the safety of life on the river. The MCA has made efforts to take account of as many as possible of the matters raised in the consultation and elsewhere. As I say, there are routes to exemption from those damage stability requirements, subject to developing that risk assessment.
The MCA will consider all cases on their own merits, and will be as pragmatic and flexible as possible, provided of course that safety is not compromised. Although I have sympathy for many of the points that my hon. Friend makes, I feel it is right that we continue with the legislation simply because of the risk to life, which is, as I say, unacceptably high without the new legislation. I thank all hon. Members for their support for, and interest in, today’s critical debate. I am very grateful to everyone for their time.
Andrew Rosindell
I thank the Minister for his response, and the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) and for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), and of course my good friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for their contributions. I thank the Minister for his responses to many of the points that I made, but I fear that it will be met with disappointment. I am sure that he instinctively understands my points and why I am making them in this way. I hope that he will not simply follow what he is being told, but that he will be genuinely convinced that this is not a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
I hope that the Minister will go back to his Ministry, talk to the MCA, fight for my constituents and the boat operators that have served London for so long and so well, and not be part of a decision that will wreck people’s jobs and wreck an industry that has done so much for London and played such a central part on our wonderful River Thames. I ask him to please think about those points: please go back to the Ministry, speak to the people who work in the industry, and look for flexibility and compromise. Do not take what we are told—look at the real situation.
Finally, I was a little concerned by the phrase “design or good fortune”. My goodness—imagine if we applied that principle to everything we do in Government and everything we do in our lives: “It is only by good fortune that bad things have not happened.” We might as well have a permanent lockdown and have everyone stay indoors and never do anything in their lives, just in case we do not have good fortune. We cannot live like that. We have to allow flexibility. We are a Conservative Government and this is in unconservative way of approaching the problem. Yes, we need safety and a sensible way of dealing with such things, and we need people to upgrade their standards where possible, but for goodness’ sake, let us have a light-touch Government, not interfering with everything and taking measures to an extreme whereby people lose their jobs and livelihoods.
I know that the Minister must, deep down in his heart, agree with much of what I am saying. I know, given the Minister that he is—strong and determined—that he will not go back to the Ministry and allow civil servants and others to dictate, but that he will make the decision himself. He will, of course, be responsible for those decisions, so I know that, in the end, he will make the right decisions for the River Thames and for all those people who work in this cherished industry in our capital.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future of passenger boats and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.
Marine Protected Areas
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to facilitate the new hybrid arrangements. I call Tony Lloyd to move the motion.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the extension of marine protected areas.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. Marine protected areas are of enormous importance not only to our country and our coastal seas, but to the whole world. Our oceans are massively complicated systems and not properly understood, but we know how important they are to human life. For example, some 25% of the carbon gases produced by human activity are absorbed by the ocean. Some of that is good and some of it leads to the acidification of our seas, which is less good. We know, and the United Kingdom Government and the United Nations are in agreement, that our oceans are now at a critical point. Some 1% have protection but scientists think that a minimum of 30% require protection, to allow our oceans to restore and recover.
Sadly, over-fishing and industrial fishing are still with us, putting whole species of fish at risk. The yellowfin tuna, for example, is now endangered and could cease to exist within a relatively small number of years. The massively destructive use of bottom trawlers—those that scour our oceans, ripping up the seabed and the basis for the biodiversity that allows the fish to spawn and flourish—is doing enormous damage across the world and in the seas off these islands of ours.
We also know that the use of the oceans as a dustbin for human activity cannot go on. Plastic pollution is across our oceans. Even in the deepest recesses of the oceans, many miles down, we now find plastic waste from human activity. Using our oceans as a dump for our sewage is simply no longer acceptable. I can remember a time when the sewage boat from Manchester went out into the Mersey bay and dumped sewage—admittedly treated sewage, but nevertheless sewage—into the Irish sea. Such practices have stopped in the UK, but they must also be stopped worldwide.
Of course, there are questions about antibiotics in our seas and the short and long-term impact that will have. There are even questions about the destruction of the efficiency of antibiotics for human use. We need international action, and it is clear that we need United Nations treaties to govern the use of the sea as a resource. There is a call by scientists, for example, for a moratorium on the fishing of mesopelagic fish that lie at a depth of between 200 metres and 1,000 metres. It is up to our Government to operate internationally and to call for action at a global level.
Whether the UK has less influence today post Brexit is a moot point that we can debate on another occasion. It is a real issue, although I welcome yesterday’s announcement of the new fisheries agreement between Norway, the European Union and the UK. That is an important step forward in rebuilding the trust that has been lost recently. In fairness, the UK Government have entered an era where there are some very good examples of our international obligations in care for the sea. The protection zone, for example, around St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha is important. I think that Tristan da Cunha is the largest protected area of ocean on the planet. It was a welcome step by our country and Government.
I want to concentrate the bulk of my remarks on UK inshore and offshore seas. The cycle of carbon capture, and the maintenance of productive fishing as a resource for human consumption, depend on the biodiversity in particular of our inshore and offshore seas. Those things are most likely to have an impact closest to our coast. The sea is massively important as a source of carbon capture, and we can increase or decrease that. On an international level, in practice, before I talk about our own coast, maintaining the mangrove swamps and seagrasses—and more locally our salt marshes—is of huge importance for carbon capture; but biodiversity of the oceans is of fundamental importance.
There are good examples. The Lyme bay experiment has yielded positive results and shown what can be done, with less fishing but more fish being caught. It is a measure of how far the productivity of the oceans has declined that we can now demonstrate that we can increase the productivity of fishing with less intensive methods. When we fish less intensively there is an increase in the number of coastal fish such as pollock, cod and wrasse, which used to abound around our coast but have now become much scarcer. However, they increase once again if we take care to manage the resources around our coast.
Our coasts are not yet in the state that we would want: 25% of the UK’s seas and 40% of our inshore seas are in some form of marine protected area, but we face problems. The Government’s marine strategy report revealed that only four of the 11 indicators of good environmental status are met across our local seas. There are problems to do with nomadic fishing practices: the practices of those who come into an area without having been there before, fish and overfish, and disappear, perhaps for some years, to come back when it suits them but does not suit the biodiversity we are trying to encourage. In 2019 supertrawlers with bottom dredges engaged in 3,000 hours of fishing in our offshore marine protected areas. It is estimated that in the first half of 2020, that level of overfishing had already doubled. We have huge problems and have to take action, or the destruction of our seas will continue.
I am bound to welcome—and I do welcome—the steps that have been taken already, with the creation of the many marine protection areas around our coast. There are hundreds of them. However, we have a patchwork with different rules and regimes operating in different areas. We need to look forward to something to give greater consistency around the coastline. There are differences, it is sad to recall, between the English, Welsh and Scottish coasts. Of course Ireland is a different regime, but Northern Ireland, again, has different practices. We need consistency. I welcome the fact that the Government are looking at Dogger Bank and south Dorset for the banning of bottom trawling—that is so important because of the impact of bottom trawlers—but of course, that means that of the 76 offshore marine protection areas, only two will potentially have that kind of protection. We need a more joined-up strategy.
There has been progress, as I have said. Lyme Bay is a tremendously powerful example of what happens when we take a whole-site approach and say, “We are looking at the protection not just of individual species, but of the total biodiversity of an area.” That is important. The ban on electric pulse fishing has been another major step forward. I am a reluctant Brexiteer even to this day, but that ban has demonstrated that, where we now have the power to use UK law, we can take positive steps and move things forward. The Prime Minister spoke recently about the need to ban the vessels that “hoover up” our oceans, and he was right to call for that, but we need action to ensure that a ban comes into operation.
We need the UK Government to move forward on a total strategy for our shores and oceans. We have some of the best marine scientists in the world, and we have the capacity, as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, to be a leader in the demand for international change, but we need a total UK marine strategy that looks after our own shores—both inshore and offshore—and gives leadership on and commitment to ensuring that we cherish oceans around the world as something for the future, not simply as dumps for the past or as a resource to exploit and destroy.
A total international strategy would begin the move towards protecting the 30% of our oceans that we have to protect. The UK Government are committed to that, but not yet. My first call is for the UK to operate internationally to look for the kinds of global treaties that will make a material difference, give protection to our oceans, and bring sustainability for the future. My second call is for a whole-site approach to our inshore and offshore seas to join up the work that has been done across the marine protection areas off our coasts. It is tremendously important that we move in that direction.
Perhaps the most important call at the moment is for some consistency in challenging the practice of bottom trawling by super trawlers, which destroys the ocean bed. As our Prime Minster has already said in recent months, we have to stop those who would hoover up not only the fish, but the seabed, which will take many years to recreate. If we bring an end to bottom trawling in our offshore seas, we will have taken a huge step forward.
I appreciate that this is something that we have to take with care. I know that there is suspicion in the European Union that the Dogger Bank ban is being done for nationalistic fishing reasons, but we have to demonstrate clearly that it is actually being done for scientific marine protection reasons. If we can get those arguments across, we can begin to make a material difference to the biodiversity across our seas.
I say to the Minister that although the Government have done some seriously good things, which I genuinely applaud, I look forward to a joined-up marine strategy that says that we will take the lead internationally to protect our oceans, that we will take a whole-site approach to our marine protection areas, and that we will guarantee that the unacceptable practice of bottom trawling by super trawlers is brought to an end.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I feel as though this is a very personal debate, with just Dame Angela, me and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), whom I thank for securing the debate. From what he said, we have a great deal in common and share a great deal of interest in this area. I am not going to say it is all perfect, but I will say that I genuinely think we are driving in the direction that he is very keen for us to go.
The hon. Member recalled the dumping of raw sewage in the Mersey. I had the perhaps ignominious role of going out on the last ever shipment of raw sewage to be dumped in the River Severn when I was a new reporter, and jolly smelly it was. However, that has all stopped, which is a great move. We do not want to see that again.
As I said, the hon. Member and I share a great deal of interest in the wonderfully rich UK marine life and in our marine protected areas, where we have protected the most precious habitats and species. We have three types of protections that come within what we generally call MPAs: marine conservation zones, special protection areas, and special areas of conservation. They all contribute towards our having an ecologically coherent network of MPAs. I hope I can demonstrate that we have a clear strategy for our marine space, but that is not to say there is not work to do. Having left the EU, we now have a great many more opportunities to do a lot of what we really want to do in the marine space.
It is worth looking back at how far we have come in recent years in order to build up the network. Just 10 years ago, there were only a small number of MPAs scattered throughout our waters. Since then, huge amounts of work have been undertaken by the Government, agencies and stakeholders through surveying and other means. The hon. Member mentioned that we have a fantastic groundswell of scientists in this country—experts and specialists in the marine space. They have all been feeding into this endeavour, which has allowed us to identify and designate the network of MPAs in order to protect the very special habitats and species found around our waters.
We now have 371 MPAs—I think the hon. Member will agree that that is quite some achievement—which cover 38% of the area. In England, there are 178 MPAs, covering 40% of English waters. That really is a very big achievement in what is quite a short space of time. However, it is not just about slapping on a designation; it is about making sure we manage those protected areas properly. As he will know, our marine space faces enormous pressures. It has struck me, particularly since I have been the environment Minister, that everyone wants to get their hands on the marine space. There are a lot of challenges, but that is why it is important that we have our network of MPAs and a strong marine planning and licensing regime to prevent harmful activities. However, MPAs also need protection from other forms of activity that fall outside those regimes, such as certain types of fishing that might be harmful to them.
I want to touch on our inshore waters, which are up to 6 nautical miles from the coast. That is where we have full control of our MPAs. Over 90 of those are now protected from damaging fishing activities, thanks to the hard work of the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities and the Marine Management Organisation, and to the use of byelaws that we have been able to put into operation in the inshore areas. The hon. Member touched on bottom towed fishing. In many of those areas, we have been able to permanently stop bottom towed fishing taking place. That is happening right now in Poole harbour, The Needles, Bembridge on the Isle of Wight, Lyme Bay—he rightly referred to the model project that has been put into operation there—and Torbay.
Through working very closely with the fishing industry and other stakeholders, it has been possible to develop individual, tailor-made schemes for certain areas. There are others around the coast that protect such things as reef features by having measures that relate to mobile fishing gear, and restricting dredging in some areas and the hand-harvesting of certain shellfish—for example, in seagrass beds. Lots of measures are being put in place so that we have more sustainable habitats and sustainable fishing at the same time.
The hon. Gentleman rightly says that there are opportunities in many of these areas, particularly in the carbon storage space—for example, carbon storage in kelp beds and in our mud. There are lots of opportunities and good reasons why we should put in place some of these measures.
In our offshore waters, which the hon. Gentleman touched on, the picture is very different. Introducing management measures for our offshore MPAs has been really hard to achieve because we had to get the agreement of all the EU member states. As you will probably realise, Dame Angela, that is pretty tricky. Now that we have left the common fisheries policy and introduced the Fisheries Act 2020, at long last we have the opportunity to bring in our own byelaws so that we can start to protect these areas properly. A great deal of work has been done really fast to try to use some of the new powers. As was mentioned, we have proposals for four of our most sensitive offshore sites—the Canyons, Dogger Bank, Inner Dowsing, Race Bank and North Ridge, and south Dorset. We set about consultations literally within days of getting the new powers, and the consultation runs until 28 March.
We are not going to stop there. We are also developing a whole programme to bring in required management for the remainder of the offshore areas in English waters, and we want to do that as fast as possible.
Although we have a proud record of MPAs, the Government are mindful that we could go further in the marine space, which is why we called for a review into the idea of highly protected marine areas. The subsequent Benyon review, which I am sure the hon. Member remembers, looked at whether we could create highly protected marine areas. The Government welcomed the report and are looking at the recommendations. Such areas would allow biodiversity to recover across a whole site. It is very much what the hon. Member touched on—a much wider, more holistic approach. A lot of work is going on with stakeholders to talk about those recommendations. The Secretary of State has announced that we intend to pilot some highly protected marine areas. It is very exciting, and we will hear more about it as time goes on.
I want to touch on large fishing vessels, which are often referred to as super trawlers. Lots of organisations are raising that issue, and I have had a lot of letters about them and their impact on MPAs. The Government are looking closely at what our policy for such vessels should be, but as ever it needs to be evidence based. Everything has to be based on science. Those vessels are usually what we call pelagic trawlers, which means that they fish in the water column. As such, they are not likely to come into contact with seabed habitats and species, which most of the MPAs were designated to protect, but we know that, for those highly mobile fish species, area-based protections such as MPAs might not be sufficient, and they are best protected by measures that apply across the full range. Certainly, looking at those vessels is on the radar.
I just wanted to say yet again that having left the common fisheries policy, and now that the transition period has ended, we have the opportunity to look at these large vessels coming into our waters offshore. I want to highlight, though, that we have already acted to ban pulse fishing in our waters, which the hon. Member referred to, and I am pleased that he welcomed that.
Our domestic MPA network has meant that the UK is in a strong position to be a global leader in protecting our seas. The hon. Member questioned what our role would be, and whether we would step up to the plate—whether we could, now that we have left the EU—but I definitely believe that we can play a much greater role on the international stage.
We are a very ambitious participant in what we are calling a marine super year—2021 is the marine super year—and we are continuing to push for strong multilateral action on ocean protection. As part of this, the UK is advocating the protection of at least 30% of the global ocean within marine protected areas by 2030, which aligns with global protection of at least 30% of land by the same year. We are championing the 30 by 30 target through our leadership of the Global Ocean Alliance, and as ocean co-chair of the High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People. I am delighted to announce that Bangladesh has recently joined the Global Ocean Alliance, which brings us to 41 countries and counting. Between the two alliances, 70 countries now support the 30 by 30 target, which I think the hon. Member will welcome, because he touched on some of these much wider issues.
The hon. Member also touched on this whole space of a more holistic, joined-up approach to everything that goes on in our seas, particularly fishing. It is our ambition to have world-class fisheries management that will achieve sustainable fisheries, safeguarding stocks, which is obviously crucial for the fishermen themselves, but also safeguarding the environment in the long term. The Government remain fully committed to sustainable fishing, and to the principle of maximum sustainable yields as set out in the 25-year environment plan and our fisheries White Paper. The objectives of the Fisheries Act 2020, the joint fisheries statement and the fisheries management plans collectively reaffirm our commitment to achieving sustainable fishing and protecting the environment, while tailoring our approach to our unique seas and the needs of our fishing industry. I want to give reassurance that I am working very closely with the Fisheries Minister on this, because while she is responsible for fishing and our fishermen, I am responsible for the environment, and we need to work together so that we have a sustainable future for everyone.
I have been very pleased to have the chance to talk about some of these issues, and I thank the hon. Member for Rochdale for, in his very measured and fair way, raising the points that he made. I think he will agree that we are thinking along the same lines, which is always good, even when speaking to the Opposition. I know this is something that he strongly believes in, and I hope I have demonstrated that we are doing a great deal for marine protection. Our marine does faces a lot of challenges, but we now have the structure in place and we are working very hard to make all these things line up so that we have a sustainable future around these coasts, and are also using our influence internationally for all concerned: wildlife, nature, and those earning their living from the sea.
Question put and agreed to.
Research and Development Funding
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice, in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will also be a suspension between each debate. I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of the debate and they are expected to remain for the entire debate. I must also remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times, both to each other and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and before they leave the room. There are no Members in the Public Gallery.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of research and development funding.
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd, and to have the opportunity to discuss this vital question, which is extremely timely. Has there ever been a time when the public were so interested and indebted to the work of our researchers? Quite simply life-saving and life-changing, with huge social and economic consequences, the vaccine development is not the subject for today. The research and development, the research institutions and universities that support them are a cause for global celebration and thanks.
That opening sentence makes it clear that this a huge and complicated area. I suspect that in 90 minutes we will not be able to do full justice to it, not least the complicated and important relationship between public and private funding, which I suspect others will touch on. I will concentrate on some of the key, immediate questions facing particularly public funding and its future. The debate is also timely for different and, frankly, much more political reasons.
I will concentrate on public funding issues relating to Horizon, the impact of official development assistance cuts, and the curious case of the new kid on the block, the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, which I know was discussed earlier today at the Select Committee on Science and Technology, chaired by the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). I am sure he will have more to say about that later.
Although for obvious reasons the debate is about money, money is only part of the challenge. The vital resource is people. Throughout the difficult debates of the past few years, I have spoken to many people in the research and development and science sectors, and that is a point they come back to every time: it is about people, relationships between people and scientific collaborations. Science is global and research is global. Those relationships matter.
I am delighted to see my neighbour, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), who shares some of Cambridge with me. My constituency is in an area that is about research and development to its core. It boasts countless institutions working on a dazzling range of areas. To cover it geographically, from north to south and east to west, we see a huge array of start-ups at the innovation centre to the north, very close to the science park, which hosts UK success stories such as Owlstone, now the Bradfield Centre.
Nearby Darktrace, the world-class laboratory of molecular biology, whose iconic building is a gateway to the south of the city, has been conducting research for decades to understand biology at a molecular level, and whose work has produced no fewer than 12 Nobel prizes. That is now located, by no accident, very close to the new AstraZeneca building, to allow collaboration to thrive, as it does right across that area of the biomedical campus.
Green aerospace design work will be found at the Whipple to the east, a project that is well known to the Minister and is very topical. That is not far from the British Antarctic Survey, while the huge international success story that is Arm is to the west. Marshall Aerospace is also in the private sector, providing world-leading aerospace development as well as materials development.
Go further to see the Cleantech works being done at Allia, and go past the railway station to see the Sainsbury Laboratory of plant science. Step forward to find Anglia Ruskin University, with its hugely important research into climate and environmental change. We then find our famous colleges, which host such relevant thinkers as Professor Dasgupta, whose recent review of economics and nature must be transformative. There is huge expertise among our social scientists, helping our understanding of our past as well as our future, our legal frameworks and our relationships with other countries.
I could speak for 90 minutes just listing all the amazing things going on in and around Cambridge. I will not do that, but I can hardly fail to mention the National Institute of Agricultural Botany and the surrounding science parks, Babraham and the amazing DNA sequencing at the Wellcome Sanger Institute. I will have missed others and I apologise to them. In all of them, people are the key. The money counts too.
For a considerable time, the importance of research and development work and the funding for it has been recognised on a cross-party basis. There is widespread agreement that UK spending on R&D has historically been too low. Although R&D investment in the UK has risen over the past 30 years, the amount we actually spend on it as a proportion of GDP has been flatlining, hovering at between 1.5% and 1.7% of GDP over the past two decades. It is behind the European average of 2% and the OECD average of 2.4%.
Our key neighbours and allies have been successful in investing far more. We often claim that we punch above our weight and get more for our money, but how much better we could be if we were matching that. The Government acknowledge this and have pledged to catch us up with the rest of the developed world, with a target of raising investment to 2.4% by 2027 and to increase public investment in R&D to £22 billion a year by 2024-25. This is welcome, although we know it will be a challenge.
This week we have seen studies showing that such targets are often set but have historically been difficult to reach, despite good intentions. It is important that we have this as an ambition and set a clear pathway. There are growing concerns in the R&D sector about how that figure is to be achieved and whether, beyond the rhetoric, the Government really still have that commitment to meet that ambition.
I will turn to the immediate problems, the first of which is Horizon. For many of us, there was little to welcome in what I would call the slapdash, desperate, last-minute trade and co-operation agreement that the Prime Minister salvaged with the European Union, but one glimmer in it was the framework for the UK’s continued association with the EU’s newest and biggest research funding programme, Horizon Europe. With a budget of €100 billion, it is the world’s largest and most competitive research funding programme.
We know that membership of the EU’s 2014-2020 Horizon research programme has been extremely beneficial to UK research. The UK has been one of the largest beneficiaries of the nearly €60 billion of funding that has been allocated over the past six years, receiving more than €7 billion. The vast majority of that has gone to our excellent UK universities, with academic research in the social sciences, arts and humanities particularly dependent on this stream of income from the EU.
The harsh reality of leaving the EU means that we are undoubtedly in a worse position this time around. While the rules for our participation have yet to be completely settled, it is clear that we will now be participating as an associated country, meaning that although we can lead and participate in collaborative research projects, we will have no formal decision-making power over the programmes and we will not be involved in discussions about which areas should receive priority for funding.
Taking back control turns out to mean not being in the room when decisions are being taken and, incredibly, having to beg others to make the case on our behalf. It does not matter how it is dressed up, our influence is reduced. In another blow this week, we have learned that we could also be excluded from major quantum and space research projects.
Whatever one thinks about all that, one of the biggest question marks is about how the Government will be funding the UK’s association with Horizon Europe, which is expected to cost about £2 billion a year, and who in Whitehall will be managing this. Post Brexit, we know the Horizon Europe bill will be paid in isolation rather than as part of overall EU membership, and that there is no existing budget provision for it. It was notable, despite many calls from the sector, that plans for where the funding would be sourced were conspicuously absent from the Budget earlier this month. There are significant and growing concerns among scientists and research funders that it could now be taken from the UK’s existing science budget. That would pit different elements of UK R&D against each other and would see a collective diminishing of the overall pot. It could set us back in our progress towards 2.4%.
Universities UK has warned—I am sure that the Minister will be aware of its letter to the Prime Minister this week—that if the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is required to fund the costs of participation out of the existing budget, it will amount to an effective cut of something in excess of £1 billion, roughly equivalent to the cost of funding the entire Medical Research Council and the Science and Technology Facilities Council combined. Reduced domestic funding would also damage our ability to compete for Horizon Europe funding, risking a double loss. Universities UK estimates that a £1 billion reduction in funding would be equivalent to cutting more than 18,000 full-time academic research posts, distributed across all parts and all four nations of the UK, and could potentially lead to a further reduction of up to £1.6 billion in private R&D investment that would have been stimulated by public investment.
The Campaign for Science and Engineering—I am, as ever, indebted to Professor Sarah Main for her advice—warns that sourcing the Horizon bill from the current science budget in the way I referred to would effectively negate two years of Government increases in UK R&D funding, so it is a serious issue. I am sure that the Minister is well aware of it, and I hope that she will be able to confirm that the Government are on the case. Ideally she would confirm that the cost of association to Horizon Europe will not be taken out of the existing UK Research and Innovation budget.
I am afraid that what I have been describing is only one of the pressing problems. The Government’s recent decision to cut £4 billion from the aid budget prompted fury in Cambridge, where we take those things very seriously, not least because it broke a manifesto promise by the governing party to maintain spending of 0.7% of gross national income on aid. However, it is becoming increasingly clear this week that as a consequence the plug will now have to be pulled on hundreds of international collaborative research projects funded with UK aid. In passing, I want to pay tribute to Chris Parr and his colleagues at Research Professional News, who uncovered much of the detail. UKRI, left with a £120 million shortfall, has had to announce this week, with just four months’ notice, that most of its aid-funded research projects are now unlikely to be funded beyond 31 July, regardless of the stage that the research is at.
Those projects are aimed at tackling some of the world’s major problems, such as climate change, antimicrobial resistance and poor health and nutrition across the world. Projects that were previously funded through the global challenges research fund and the Newton fund, which usually receive official development assistance, have seen UK universities take centre stage in efforts to address plastic waste management, develop renewable energy and clean water technology, improve worldwide labour laws and roll out 5G networks in lower and middle-income countries. In the past year alone, lessons learned from ODA-funded projects have enabled UK universities to support the national effort against covid-19 through enhanced virus detection technology and online rehab services to help those suffering the long-term effects of the disease. I am grateful to Universities UK for its advice. As I said, the Minister will have seen its letter this week, which I thought was an unusually strong warning and intervention.
In Cambridge I am already hearing that there could be an impact on internationally important scientific programmes, such as those run from the UN Environment Programme world conservation monitoring centre, which is based in the city, as well as on many university projects that are currently focused on international development. Once again, I could read a long list of projects. I will not, but I will say that a consistent message is coming from all those people about the soft power delivered for us by those projects, which are of course good in their own right, but are also how we still have influence in the world. Those people all tell me that that is based on trust, and that if we break that trust it is hard to get it back again. There is much more than a financial cost.
That response is not only coming from Cambridge. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) just missed the deadline for speaking today, but he asked me to mention that the all-party parliamentary group on global tuberculosis recently conducted an inquiry into the UK’s investment in global health research. It found that the sustainability of the UK’s funding across the full product development pipeline is essential to getting life-saving new tools from UK labs to patients around the world. Cutting that funding will have enormous implications for the lives of the most vulnerable, collective global health security, the UK’s research infrastructure and our standing on the international stage. He urges the Government to think again.
It is shocking that the Government are punching a hole in such important research, particularly in a year when we are recovering from a global pandemic and, of course, hosting the G7 leaders summit and the crucial COP26 climate summit. Frankly, in terms of diplomacy, how inept does it get?
Universities have rightly warned that the cuts will harm our international standing, curtail successful programmes that have been a key vehicle for UK science diplomacy for many years, and lose international science and research partnerships that have taken a long time to establish. Stopping funding mid-cycle frankly shows blatant disregard and disrespect for our international partners. It is hardly surprising that six academics from a key research council advisory group for international research resigned this week in protest. The publication Research Professional News put it well yesterday when it noted:
“Anyone who has held a grant from the Global Challenges Research Fund will know that the UK goes out of its way to carry out rigorous due diligence on international organisations to ensure that they are reliable partners. It turns out that Her Majesty’s government was the party that everyone should have been keeping an eye on.”
All this is taking us in a worrying direction, when looking at that 2.4%. It seems to be flying in the face of the Chancellor’s stated aim of making the UK a scientific superpower, which was reiterated only yesterday by the Prime Minister. Universities UK has estimated that on top of the cost of Horizon association, the cut to ODA research funding could lead to a £1 billion reduction of the overall R&D budget. I suspect that, in the end, these are Treasury decisions. The Minister may well agree with the rising number of voices speaking out against many of the cuts. I urge her to do all she can to ensure that they are reversed and the vital projects that the funding supports are maintained.
Given all those pressures, it is perhaps surprising that the Government are considering diverting funding into a new, untested idea—the Advanced Research and Invention Agency. I will try not to duplicate this morning’s discussion. I will also try not to let my view of its leading proponent prejudice my thoughts, but I cannot help reflecting on the delicious irony of the name transition. DARPA—the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency—sounded like a rather crude 1960s American missile system. ARIA is much more, dare I say it, European. Names aside, it raises a whole series of questions about how it fits into a delicately balanced landscape.
The Haldane principle, dual funding, mechanisms to safeguard blue-sky research—people have been wrestling with these issues for years. The raison d’être of the Cambridge college system is to preserve space for imaginative and creative thinking. I do not say that there is no scope for change or improvement, but please identify the real problem. As David Sainsbury has so sensibly warned in the past, we should not just try to import something from another culture or another system; it is much better to nurture and encourage what we are good at. We should maybe look at the real problem: the much-talked-of valley of death—getting our great innovations developed. If we want to borrow from America, we should perhaps look more closely at the Small Business Research Initiative and the role of public procurement.
Where is the overall plan? I have to say that there was not much that the Opposition welcomed from the previous Conservative Government, but an industrial strategy—now apparently sadly discarded—was a step forward. A huge amount of work was done across many sectors, although I fear there is only limited public awareness of it. The Opposition would certainly have preferred the mission-oriented approach championed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), but at least we had a structure.
Let me conclude on two further issues. These sources of public funding are vitally important for R&D, but given that public funding made up only 26% of total R&D funding in 2018 and the majority of funding currently comes from the private sector, we know that much more needs to be done to encourage private sector investment. According to Government estimates from 2019, we will need an additional £12 billion per year of private investment to meet the 2.4% target. That is significant.
Currently, British businesses invest less in R&D than those of similar nations. Investment is concentrated in major players in just a few sectors, with the life sciences sector consistently the largest R&D investor in the UK, but my understanding is that this, too, has been flatlining in recent years. There are concerns over the long-term certainty of key schemes which have been supporting early stage innovation in the UK life sciences sector. I chair the all-party parliamentary group for life sciences, and colleagues tell me that despite being recognised by the Government as a highly effective scheme for driving business investment in R&D, the biomedical catalyst scheme still has no confirmed budget for the 2021 competition. I could say more, but time presses.
I will touch briefly on workforce issues. Back in 2019, the previous Science Minister, the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), highlighted that, as well as private investment, one of the key challenges we may face in meeting a 2.4% target will be the workforce, with an estimated 260,000 additional researchers working in R&D across universities, business and industry likely to be required. He was right. We should be concerned, because there are a number of known workforce issues facing those in R&D.
As the Royal Society has helpfully set out, the UK immigration system is still one of the most expensive in the world, which is a particular deterrent to international researchers and entrepreneurs considering making the UK their research home. Careers in R&D are not as attractive as they should be, with relatively low salaries, short-term funding, unclear career development and difficulties facing researchers and technicians looking to shift between academia and industry at various times during their careers.
Diversity is also an issue, with only about 7% of managers, directors and senior officials in academic and non-academic higher education positions being black, Asian and minority ethnic. Despite many excellent initiatives, such as Athena Swan, still too often there are too few women.
All of this must be challenged in order to create a welcoming working culture in R&D. I recognise the good work that the Minister has done, and is doing, to tackle this. I am glad that the Government have made at least some moves in the Budget to undo the damage inflicted by their predecessors, by looking again at visa restrictions, with a view to attracting global talent, and that they have recognised the need to tackle these wider issues in their recent research and development road map. I look forward to seeing the detail of the people and culture strategy that has been promised.
Unfortunately, as the trade union Prospect notes, public sector research establishments have found themselves constrained by public sector pay freezes by successive Conservative Governments, and unable to match the competitiveness of pay offered by universities and elsewhere in the private sector. Another former Science Minister, David Willetts, admitted in 2020 that it was only when George Osborne visited Cambridge’s Medical Research Council laboratory of molecular biology and saw the impediments to performance caused by public sector rules that the then Chancellor was convinced to grant it and similar bodies greater freedoms. I am told by Prospect that those freedoms have once again been removed. If that is the case, they should be restored.
In conclusion, we all recognise the importance of this sector to the future of the UK. I suspect that the Minister is fighting her corner, and all power to her. If she needs an aria, she should look no further than Puccini, “I will win—vincerò!” “Nessun Dorma” did once capture the public mood, and we need to show that our victory against the virus, if it is secured, will have come on the back of UK researchers and our great universities. We should celebrate them, but that means securing the funding. Minister, please sort out how Horizon is to be funded, restore the ODA cuts, and start to undo the damage that I fear has already been done to our international reputation.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I ask Members to speak for no more than five minutes.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this debate. I am a little disappointed that he did not burst into song at the finale of his speech, but I recognise the important points made.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that this is a time in which the profile of, and gratitude for, UK and international science has never been higher across the country and the world. The excellence of British science has been particularly prominent, whether in the city that he and my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) represent, or in other great cities and towns across the country that host some of the best scientists in the world, working in collaboration with others across the world. It is no coincidence that the first pillar of our global strategy—in the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy published yesterday—is science and technology, specifically to grow the UK’s science and technology power in pursuit of strategic advantage. That is right and it represents an exciting prospect in the light of what we have discovered about the possibility of science moving quicker than we ever thought possible to save lives across the world. We are also seeing, in other aspects of the response to the pandemic, a real acceleration in the deployment of technologies, even if they are far removed from medical sciences.
The new Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy confirmed this morning that it remains the Government’s intention and commitment to invest 2.4% of GDP in science by 2027, and to achieve a public R&D budget of £22 billion of investment in science, so this should be a boom time for science and research. With the confidence of the public and the unprecedented commitment that the Government have made to doubling the science budget, we should be able to do more things to change more lives. Just at this moment, however, for some of the reasons mentioned by the hon. Member for Cambridge, science faces the prospect of having to retreat.
First, two weeks before the beginning of the next financial year, our principal science research body, UKRI, does not yet know what its budget will be for the year ahead. As we know, especially for science projects, long-term funding is crucial to contracts and investigations that take many years and months.
Secondly, there is uncertainty, as the hon. Gentleman said, about whether the UK’s contribution to Horizon Europe will be deducted from the science budget. In the past, what we got out of Horizon 2020, as it was known, was separate from the science budget. It has been suggested that our contribution to that project will be £2 billion a year, which would amount to as much as a quarter of the UKRI budget, meaning that at a time of intended advance, programmes such as the Faraday Institution’s research into batteries might have to be cut. In evidence to my Committee this morning, Dominic Cummings made it clear that the Prime Minister’s intention in the Brexit negotiations was always that that subscription should not be settled by cutting the science budget.
Thirdly, the temporary reduction in ODA spending that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is already causing UKRI to have to terminate some existing grants and leaving it unable to initiate any new awards. Sir Jeremy Farrar of the Wellcome Trust has said that the National Institute for Health Research could see a cut in global health funding of 28% just at the time when covid has established the importance of that international work. There is also the importance of restoring the fundraising proceeds that charities have lost.
We know that the Minister and the Secretary of State are committed to getting the budget we need. Now is the time to fight for that. The Minister enjoys the support of my Committee and, I am sure, of the whole House, in fighting those battles to give clarity to UK science.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for his interesting and comprehensive speech, and for arranging a debate on this important issue.
Research and development underpins our economic resilience, our global competitiveness and our progress towards a sustainable and climate-friendly future. The UK has always been a centre for research excellence, and Wales has played a foundational role in driving innovation across the UK. Wales is home to eight universities, including Bangor University in my own constituency of Arfon, and—as you would expect me to say, Mr Dowd—Bangor is a leading centre of excellence across the disciplines, in fields as diverse as social science, forestry and psychology. Wales has long driven innovation, from producing the historic first hydrogen fuel cell in 1842, to innovations reflected in the work of leading Welsh companies such as Riversimple. I hope that the Minister can confirm today the protection of funding for Bangor University’s research into agricultural microplastics and the consequences for food security and sustainable development in developing countries.
Welsh research has global implications, with Welsh-based researchers active in many countries, not least in the developing world. Perhaps the only really welcome aspect of yesterday’s grandiose integrated review was the commitment to return spending on overseas development to 0.7% of the UK’s national income. That, of course, was qualified, but I assure the House that I will do what I can to encourage the Government to return to their commitment, as set out in law by a previous Conservative Government. I hope you will allow me to say, Mr Dowd, that I was dismayed by that particular cut in the midst of a global pandemic. It is a cut in aid to those in conflict zones such as Yemen, where British-made weapons and systems are causing and compounding untold suffering. More positively, overseas development assistance also supports research by universities across the UK to advance our global progress towards achieving the UN’s sustainable development goals. As I said, I hope that the Government can confirm that funding for Bangor is protected.
From supporting sustainable development to ensuring our global competitiveness, research and development funding is pivotal to sustainability and productivity in our economy. That is why Plaid Cymru welcomed the UK Government’s commitment to raise R&D spending to 2.4% of GDP by 2024, yet the same regional inequalities that split our economy, favouring London and the south-east, are reflected in how the UK Government support research and development. In 2018, while R&D spending was £587 per head in England, it plummeted to just £250 in Wales—in other words, the level of research on R&D in Wales was just 42% of that in England. I have no doubt that this is linked, to a degree, to the low level of investment and ambition by the Labour Welsh Government, but it also reflects the huge concentration of public spending in the golden triangle of London, Oxford, and—with due respect to the local Member—Cambridge. For instance, in 2018 London and the south-east received 49% of total R&D spending from the UK Government and UK Research and Innovation.
Such inequalities have also extended to the UK Government’s fiscal interventions, which of course have profound implications for research. Between 2015 and 2018, only 210 businesses in Wales benefited from the enterprise investment scheme. That is why I urge the UK Government to acknowledge that, if the rhetoric of levelling up is to have any substance, they should immediately commit to equitable funding, not least in research and development, for otherwise marginalised economies such as we have in Wales. Anything else would prove that, in yet another respect, the UK just does not work for Wales.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) [V]
I begin by putting on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for having secured today’s important debate. I am also delighted that it comes a day after the Prime Minister announced in the integrated review the Government’s renewed commitment to spend 2.4% of GDP on R&D by 2027. It is a familiar figure, which I know the R&D policy community has spent a long time debating.
I was a Science Minister for two years and set out my own road map to 2.4%. I made a series of four speeches that looked at the importance of investing in people, in international partnerships, in private R&D investment and in emerging technologies in order to meet the target. The broad theme of those speeches—the hon. Gentleman rightly referred to this—was the importance of doubling not only public but private investment and seeking an entire change in the culture of how we do R&D in this country in order to hit 2.4%, given that other countries are now racing ahead of us. Germany is near 3%, South Korea is at 4.5% and Israel is at 4.9%. We will fall behind in the global race unless we raise our ambitions higher still.
I stand by the words of those speeches that I made in 2019, but what has changed since then is time: we have too few years to achieve 2.4%. As the hon. Gentleman stated, we are standing still at 1.8% of GDP being spent on R&D. There are just 2,115 days until 2027. We have only 302 weeks—or just a little over 50,000 hours—to go, if we are to reach that target.
Reaching the target is not just about investment, important though that is—I will talk about that in a moment. It is also about providing certainty for the future; and with certainty comes the need for advance planning in order to allow for the lead-in times, which are lengthy for R&D investment. That is why, when we were preparing to leave the European Union, the Government announced the underwrite in August 2016 and then the underwrite extension—the guarantee—so that in-flight applications to Horizon 2020 and projects already taking place in Horizon 2020, would still receive money for the duration of the projects. Communication is absolutely vital when it comes to demonstrating long-term certainty for the R&D community.
On certainty and commitment, there were big-ticket items that I needed to fight for as the Science Minister, one of those was association into Horizon Europe in order to ensure that British science stayed on the road. That was why I also worked hard to commit to an increase in the UK contribution to the European Space Agency, increasing the subscription to a record level in 2019, and also to secure the first real-terms increase in QR—quality-related research funding—for more than a decade. Those were essential big-ticket items that we needed in order to enhance stability for the sector.
When it came to Horizon, many people told me that that simply would not be possible to do. I think that sometimes the R&D policy community can see things in a bit of a glass-half-empty way, mourning for yesteryear, when what we really need is to work together towards a positive vision for the future.
The manifesto commitment made by the Government saw R&D investment publicly increase from £9 billion to £19 billion. That was a huge amount—one of the most significant increases in a generation. Since then, the Chancellor’s Budget last year increased the investment to £22 billion, so my assumption was that the Horizon subscription would come from that increase of £3 billion—the difference in what was being spent as a result of the Budget.
I recognise that we have difficulties over the current ODA R&D money that needs to be secured. Although we need certainty, it is right that we now look afresh at new structures and new funds in order to ensure that we can enhance our international research capabilities. I think that sometimes the global challenges research fund and the Newton fund were a square peg to fit a round hole when it came to justifying ODA spend—not necessarily when it came to actually fighting for what is right when it comes to R&D spend. I would look at the agility fund and the discovery fund set out in the Smith and Reid review for answers here.
On funding in general, however, we need to move away from the diverse plethora of pots—there are too many people competing for too small budgets—and replace them with the UK equivalent of Horizon Europe. A multi-annual framework for the R&D budget would help us to reach 2.4% by 2027.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) [V]
Let me begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing the debate and by welcoming the proposals for ARIA, which I believe is about to begin its legislative journey. It is good to hear that ARIA will have a guaranteed life of at least 10 years and that the chair will be responsible for its mission. It would also be good to hear that industry will be represented on the board. There is widespread recognition that innovation funding is just too short term in this country. The Catapult programme, for example, which has been a significant success, is funded in five-year blocks. The Select Committee on Science and Technology recently called for long-term funding for Catapult.
We need that long-term funding and support for research that might fail. Otherwise, we will be in the game of trying to spot and back winners. That is not the way to lead research in this country. We have a 10-point plan for the green industrial revolution. We have set out the grand challenges in the industrial strategy. Surely we now have to develop an R&D strategy that supports those measures and is aimed at finding jobs for the future.
Let me pick two areas. We have committed to phasing out petrol and diesel cars by 2030. When we take into account the rules of origin requirements guaranteeing free entry to the single market, that probably means 2027. Batteries account for 60% of the value of an electric car. The UK Battery Industrialisation Centre is helping with the developments, but in Europe, CATL, Samsung, LG Chem and SK Innovation are already building gigafactories close to European car manufacturing centres. Unless there is more support and subsidy, as is happening on a massive scale across Europe, we will be the losers.
With all due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, we need a strategy to support those areas with high industrial R&D investment but poor access to public money. The alternative is simply to reinforce the golden triangle, which already benefits from the lion’s share of UKRI and the industrial strategy challenge fund. In south Birmingham, we are building the health innovation campus, dedicated to translational health and life sciences research. The first phase of the partnership, involving the University of Birmingham and the University Hospitals Birmingham Women’s and Children’s NHS Trust, will include space for small and medium-sized enterprises and scale-ups, working in med-tech, precision medicine, diagnostics and digital health care, the very areas we need to develop.
The campus was approved as a life sciences opportunity zone last February, the first outside the south-east. Now the Government need to demonstrate what benefits attach to being an opportunity zone. As Professor Richard Jones points out in his paper, “The Missing £4 Billion”, the east midlands, west midlands and north-east benefit from business-led investment at or above the UK average, but suffer from low levels of public investment.
There is a concentration of UK R&D activity in the three areas of London, the south-east and the east of England. Over the past 10 years, 72% of R&D jobs in the 10 most R&D intensive industries were in the sub-regions covering London, Oxford and Cambridge. If the Government’s proposed uplift in R&D investment were targeted on projects outside the golden triangle, it could mean a further £9 billion for regions where there is real industrial potential.
Now is surely the time to maximise the benefits of combining public funds and business investment, to take risks on research, to ensure that resources are distributed fairly in a way that supports new jobs and new industries.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) [V]
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this essential and timely debate. He rightly referred to the renewed awareness of how critical properly funded research and development is, and how it saves lives.
There is a need to provide adequate public research funding for brain tumours. We have developed the covid vaccine through proper funding and a reduction in logistics and bulky infrastructure. Brain tumours predate covid and their lethal threat will remain when the vaccine has reduced covid mortality rates.
I am grateful for the opportunity to explain why research and development of brain tumour treatment and diagnosis is so critical. I chair the APPG on brain tumours and we mark the month of March each year by raising awareness and finance for brain tumours and their treatment. In fact, more than 100,000 people have signed a brain tumour research petition calling on the Government to level up research and development funding for brain tumours to similar levels as that for other devastating cancers.
Public funding for research is critical if we are to offer hope to brain tumour sufferers. Brain tumour research supports discovery science and early-stage translational research. The major output from discovery science—also known as basic research—is new knowledge. Few organisations are willing to take on such early-stage, high-risk research. Therefore charities such as Brain Tumour Research play a critical role at the early discovery stage. As well as the governmental support offered by the NIHR, the UK Government can also support discovery science through UK Research and Innovation and the Medical Research Council.
However, only 14% of UK spend on brain tumour research is from the Government. The remaining 86% is from the charity sector. Without new discovery science, the outlook for patients with brain tumours is very bleak. While it is high risk, when discovery science is successful it can lead to significant progress, new ways of thinking and new treatment strategies. It is this investment in discovery science that can, in time, deliver huge improvements in patient survival.
The 2016 House of Commons Petitions Committee report “Funding for research into brain tumours” declared that successive Governments have failed brain tumour patients and their families for decades. Somewhere between the NIHR, UKRI and the MRC lies a funding solution for brain tumour research, but responsibility must not be shuffled and passed on between those departments. If it is, we will continue to fail those diagnosed with this devastating condition.
It is worth pointing out that if early-stage research is not funded, there will be nothing coming out at the other end of the pipeline, and currently we are not allocating available money effectively. Just 25% of the NIHR £40 million, which was announced following the sad passing of Dame Tessa Jowell, has so far been committed to brain tumour research. Brain tumour sufferers just do not have the luxury of time. Even after significant attention has been given to the brain tumour and brain cancer space, it is still the case that brain tumours kill more children and people under 40 than any other cancers.
The potential for significant improvement to survival rates is very real. New methods of treating brain tumours are being developed, but it is a very difficult and tricky pathway. Proper Government focus and targeted funding into brain tumour research will accelerate the discovery of effective treatment. Not only would that give thousands of families real hope and reduce mortality rates, but it will also support UK plc as a world leader in this, as will the other areas of research and development raised during the debate.
It is critical in this month of March and as we go forward to make sure that adequate funding is going into research so that we can find the correct way to treat and cure those who have a brain tumour diagnosis.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on setting the scene so very well, and other hon. Members on their contributions. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response. It is a pleasure to speak for the first time in a Westminster Hall debate that she will respond to.
One of the many lessons that can learned from coronavirus is that for the brightest scientific minds in the world—I say this unashamedly, because we all believe it and evidential base for it is very clear—the special ingredient is governmental support. That has made it happen. The Government deserve credit for the way the coronavirus vaccine has been found, and for the initiative, power and strength that they put in to make sure that happened. The roll-out of the vaccine is proof of the brilliance and expertise of our scientists. We should put that on the record and thank them. I am not a scientist—I never could be, as I would not have the brains for it— but many are. Thank the Lord that we have them and that they have been able to find the antidote for covid.
We need the right people with the right training and the right equipment to make the groundbreaking discoveries that we are capable of and to achieve what we need with Government backing. This debate is about ensuring we have that. That is what we are trying to achieve. We all know that we are in difficult financial times, and my party and I have backed the Government’s Budget and plans. However, there are a few issues. We need to invest in healthcare and in research and development. Those are the two issues that I want to speak about very quickly.
The UK Government have committed to investing £22 billion in UK R&D by 2024-25 as part of the target of 2.4% of GDP by 2027 and 3% in the long term. The Government have always been committed to R&D, but I want to pose a few questions. I do it gently and constructively, by the way. I always try to do that. That is the way I try to work with my contributions.
I read the briefing by the Royal Society, which outlined what it felt must be committed to enable our research and development to continue to provide the breakthroughs that coronavirus has shown we are capable of achieving. There are many reports of mutant strains, and we need to ensure that we have the people in place to respond to whatever the future may bring, in the way that we have in the past. I personally believe that we will have to live with covid-19. I think it will be like getting our flu injections, which I do every year. I have had my vaccine, and one hon. Gentleman said that his is coming. It is good to have that in place.
The Royal Society has said that further raids on the UK research and development budget will create a funding gap that undermines the Government’s commitment to increasing UK investment in R&D to 2.4% of GDP by 2027. We realise the potential of that to improve lives. It is good to have the research, but it is also good for jobs, the economy and the wages that go with it. Since then, the Government have confirmed the UK’s association with Horizon Europe—a valuable commitment to international scientific collaboration—but they have not given an assurance that the money to pay for it will be additional to the funds already committed to the research and development budget, so we seek a response to that. The Government previously recognised that and committed to addressing the funding gap that would open up if the UK did not associate with Horizon Europe. The payment for association is now taken from the existing research and development budget, so the Government are creating a new funding gap.
I want to speak about health, but I just want to give a quick plug to the battery initiatives. In my constituency—back home in Strangford—we are going to have a couple of those coming through, and I believe there is the potential for us to drive that. I want to take the opportunity to get clarity—we are not robbing Peter to pay Paul here, I presume. It is not enough to say that we are sewing it in, but the money for this year is for little more than a membership pack.
Will the Minister also confirm that there will be collaboration between universities and companies? Queen’s University in Belfast has been one of the great exponents of how businesses and universities can work in partnership to improve health. We have cancer care in Queen’s University. We had the Prime Minister in Northern Ireland just last week, and he was saying that very thing. The Prime Minister recognises that, and we as a Parliament should recognise it and try to push on it. I want to ensure that Queen’s University has the continued funding to continue to deliver its research on cancer and many other issues.
I look to the Minister to clarify and underline what the precise delivery of the Government commitment looks like for the future of R&D. We need that, and the Minister and the Government need to deliver it.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner)— a fellow Cambridge city MP. I have the south of the city. It is fantastic to have this debate on this issue, which is really important for all the reasons he highlighted. It is enormously important for the country but also for my constituency.
Research and development is clearly absolutely vital for economic growth. We are a largely knowledge-based economy. It is a growing sector globally. It is growing far faster than general economic growth. It is absolutely right that we position ourselves as a science superpower. I fully welcome the Government’s target of R&D being 2.4% of GDP by 2027.
One thing that the pandemic has shown, and that we have always known in South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge, is that we are already a life sciences superpower. We do more testing per capita than any G20 country. The AstraZeneca vaccine, which the hon. Gentleman talked about, has been rolled out not just in the UK, but around the world, despite some wobbles in Europe at the moment, which I am sure they will get over. In my constituency, the Wellcome Sanger Institute does more genome sequencing of the covid virus than the rest of the world put together—that is a huge achievement.
The life sciences are the largest R&D sector in the whole economy. In 2019, it brought in £2.8 billion of investment, up tenfold since 2012. Although there are great amounts of private investment there, there is a huge role for Government support. The reason for that is that in the life sciences, there are often very long lead times. After the research and development stage, many years can pass before getting any revenues. There is also a lot of fundamental blue-skies research that is not necessarily directly related to commercial opportunity.
I want to mention bit.bio, a start-up company in my constituency that I happened to meet virtually yesterday. It has the technology to use the DNA from a human hair to create every type of cell in the human body in a functioning way. It has created functioning human muscles from a human hair cell in a laboratory, not for Frankenstein reasons, but because those human cells can be used to treat a lot of diseases. The company is at least two years away from any commercial application, however.
Anthony Browne
They might be able to use the hon. Gentleman’s hair—he has some left and they could use the DNA.
The Government support the life sciences industry, through the biomedical catalyst, with £30 million a year— that is a very welcome and successful scheme. An Ipsos MORI report last year showed that for every £1 of Government money put in, it leveraged £5 of private sector investment. The 150 companies that won grants from the scheme have raised £710 million. That is a 5:1 ratio compared with a 2:1 ratio across Government funding for R&D in general, so it is a far better sector in which to leverage private sector investment. Six firms in my constituency have won grants from the biomedical catalyst in recent years, and I thank the Government for that.
One sign of success is that the quality of applicants has increased dramatically. Five years ago, one third of projects of sufficiently good quality got funding, but now only one in 25 does, because there are so many high-quality applicants. That means that there is a lot more opportunity to fund, and if the Government wanted to maximise the leverage of private sector investment across R&D in all sectors, they should increase the budget of the biomedical catalyst from £30 million to, say, £100 million. There are definitely enough projects there.
I have some good news and some bad news about what is happening at the moment—the Minister and I have exchanged letters on this. The biomedical catalyst has had a competition this year, and has decided the winners, three of which are in my constituency. They are poised to make the announcement about their great funding so that they can go out to investors and get more private sector investment in, showing what a triumph both the Government programme and their technology are. The bad news is that the winners cannot be announced because the biomedical catalyst has no budget as we speak. The money is there in BEIS overall, but there are Departmental negotiations going on. In the industry as a whole, that has led to a fear that no news is bad news, and that the rug is going to be pulled from under the whole scheme. The industry is finding the silence rather ominous.
My plea to the Minister is to prove the worriers wrong. Will she announce the budget commitment to the biomedical catalyst, unlock the investment in the companies in my constituency and across the UK, and help Britain and South Cambridgeshire retain their position as life sciences superpowers of the world?
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
I thank everybody who has contributed to this really interesting debate. The public have never been more aware of the global importance of science, nor have they ever been more supportive of spending in that area. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing the debate. He rightly highlighted the superb work taking place in his constituency.
I will not attempt to detail all the groups working across Glasgow, specialising in areas as diverse as quantum optics and space, and doing all sorts of incredible work striving towards eliminating global poverty. This diversity is important, and as we see cuts in ODA, we have to ask what exactly the purpose of research funding is. As the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) said, today in the Science and Technology Committee we discussed both ARIA and UKRI funding, and if we throw in the impact of Brexit and the role of Horizon Europe, we have a lively mix of factors contributing to funding in the UK.
The ambition to increase research funding to 2.4% of GDP is widely welcomed, but there needs to be clarity on what this means. The UK’s status as a science superpower is underpinned by international research collaboration, and we need to make sure that that is protected. It is concerning that UKRI has announced a shortfall of £120 million between its ODA allocation, which has been reduced to £125 million, and its commitment to grant holders. That will affect projects funded both through the global challenges research fund and the Newton fund. A UKRI spokesperson has said that it is too early to detail the final impact on grants funded by ODA funds but that
“we expect to be making some very difficult decisions—including issuing grant termination notices”.
I have been contacted by my constituent Professor Alison Phipps, who is the UNESCO chair at the University of Glasgow. She says:
“This is profoundly concerning and will set back our ground-breaking work on racial justice at the University of Glasgow…Far more important is the welfare and safeguarding of the communities we work with in the world’s poorest countries, and where the staff we have just employed across 24 ODA countries will be destitute if we terminate their contracts upon termination of grants”.
Universities Scotland has said:
“The decision will have a whole-systems impact on our connections and collaborations internationally. Our research and innovation communities have worked intensively to establish high quality global partnerships targeted around the UN Sustainable Development Goals.”
It says that the impact will be permanent reputational damage to both Scottish and UK researchers and that it will impact a whole pile of poverty-associated challenges, including the impact of climate change and the response to the covid-19 pandemic. Investing only in domestic scientific research will not solve the problems we face as a planet. In the year when Glasgow will host COP26, and the UK is meant to be showing global climate leadership, this cut is just unacceptable.
Many Members this afternoon have asked about Horizon Europe contributions. Will this be new money, or will UKRI see its budget squeezed? We need answers to that. It is of further concern that, in the latest draft of the Horizon Europe work programme, text has appeared that would exclude participation in all quantum and space programmes by organisations in associated countries. I urge the Minister to look at that, and if groups do indeed find themselves locked out of funding as a result, I urge the Government to ensure that that funding is replaced. On ARIA, of course, any additional funding or spending is welcome, but there has to be clarity over whether this is new money or simply reprofiling.
This morning, Dominic Cummings talked about the bureaucracy of current funding as one of the reasons for the new body, but if bureaucracy is causing problems, we would surely be better off tackling that than creating a new body. He also talked about extreme freedom for researchers, so could the Minister detail how we enable extreme freedom while retaining oversight of public spending?
The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) raised the issue of national inequality of research spending, and the National Audit Office report into the industrial strategy challenge fund noted:
“The Fund is unevenly spread across the UK with the majority being provided to the West Midlands, South East and London”.
I would therefore like to hear something about how the Government will ensure that ARIA is fully representative of the devolved nations.
I have found myself in the strange situation in the last few days of agreeing with Tories when they have commented about balancing the books on the backs of the world’s poor. A global Britain—or a Britain that purports to be global—that continues to do that is not one that any of us should be proud of.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who called today’s important debate. He is a passionate champion of science and his constituency’s science strengths. In his excellent opening remarks, he set out today’s R&D landscape, and where the Government must do better. Indeed, there has been cross-party agreement in the debate about the importance of research funding. It is unfortunate that the Government do not build on that consensus.
From the gravitational constant to the structure of DNA, and from jet engines to the worldwide web, the UK has a proud tradition of science, innovation, research and development that is renowned across the world. Our university research base contributes £95 billion to the economy, supporting nearly 1 million jobs in science institutes, charities and businesses of all sizes across the country. Twenty per cent. of the UK workforce is employed in a science or research role, and those are good, high-wage, high-skilled jobs that are helping to solve key challenges facing our country and planet—climate change, disease and productivity—and helping to ensure that the UK stays globally competitive.
As the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) emphasised, the pandemic has highlighted the importance of the UK’s science research base and shown the world what we can do, particularly through vaccine research and development. However, our world-leading science sector does not have the world-leading Government that it deserves. As we have heard, the Government’s warm words on science have not been backed by action. Industrial strategy seems to have been archived, with decisions on science made piecemeal rather than strategically.
The Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), mentioned the importance of science to yesterday’s integrated review, but the Wellcome Trust has commented:
“There’s a growing gulf between rhetoric and reality in the government support for science. The Integrated Review is full of fantastic and achievable ambitions, but the words are meaningless if they’re not backed up with funding.”
Funding our R&D sector makes economic sense. The Campaign for Science and Engineering found that, for every £1 of public investment in R&D, between 20p and 30p was returned every year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) emphasised, R&D is a key driver in building the economy of tomorrow, creating new jobs as others are overtaken by automation, and positioning the UK as a leader on the world stage.
I am sure the Minister will agree when I speak about the importance of R&D, but let us look at the Government’s actions. Reports in the Financial Times today indicate that the Government are likely to miss their 2.4% of GDP R&D spending target following the cuts to overseas development. Labour has called for a 3% target. To fail on 2.4% would be truly shocking and, as has been said, it would be on the backs of the poorest countries in the world. Imperial College London, where I studied electrical engineering decades ago, is one of the many bodies that have written to me emphasising the need for international collaboration to be a priority. Yet, as the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) highlighted, the Government are cutting overseas development research. Why?
The Government promised to double R&D spending to £22 billion by 2024—a move supported by key stakeholders. However, as with many a prime ministerial promise, we do not have the detail. I have tabled many written questions on that, but the Minister has successively hidden behind the spending review, the Budget and, now, departmental budget reviews. As the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee mentioned, just this morning the Business Secretary admitted that UKRI’s 2021-22 budget had not yet been agreed. When Labour calls for a long-term funding plan for science, our ambition is orders of magnitude greater than three weeks.
During the Brexit negotiations, the Government sowed uncertainty and anxiety among researchers as they refused to commit to Horizon alignment. I am pleased that the eventual deal did make that commitment, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge pointed out, the Government continue to be evasive over the funding details. The Wellcome Trust says:
“Researchers in the UK welcomed the decision to continue the UK’s”
Horizon commitments, but
“they will be immensely frustrated, and with good reason, if it’s going to be paid for by cuts to other research. We urgently need reassurance on this.”
Can the Minister tell me whether the UK’s estimated £2 billion of Horizon contributions will be taken from the promised £22 billion science spend, as the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) implied? Will funding received back from the Horizon programmes be counted as part of that £22 billion, and which departmental budgets will pay the Horizon contributions? Science spend increases are a positive break from the decade of austerity inflicted on our economy, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge explained, we need direction, not a destination-less road map, in the absence of a clear strategy.
The Government have failed to protect our research sector from the impact of the pandemic. The hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) highlighted the importance of charity medical research, which invests £1 billion into university research and development but has been consistently ignored when it comes to pandemic support. Modelling by the Institute for Public Policy Research predicts that lost charity income could mean that medical research charities invest £4 billion less in health R&D between now and 2027, with a knock-on effect on private investment of up to £1 billion. The British Heart Foundation and Cancer Research UK have announced thousands of lost research jobs and cut hundreds of millions from R&D budgets as the Government have turned a blind eye. Why have the Government been prepared to risk those jobs and that investment?
The failure of the Government to respond to the pandemic is costing jobs and risks creating a lost generation of researchers. There are 17,000 early-career researchers whose long-term future in research is in jeopardy. In January, researchers from the Northern Ireland and north-east doctoral training partnership, representing universities across the UK, wrote to the Government calling for them to provide security for PhD students. The Government have merely shifted the cliff edge six months back, and only for some. Will the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to support early-career researchers and the next generation of science researchers?
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and others have highlighted concerns about the new high-risk, high-reward research body ARIA. Although we welcome it in principle, today’s Select Committee hearing reflected our concerns that, without a clear mission beyond the ideological eyesight of Dominic Cummings, ARIA could become a vanity project vulnerable to cronyism.
If R&D is to drive our recovery and provide high-skill, high-paying jobs, it must do so for all regions. In 2018, 72% of R&D expenditure was in the south-east and south-west, with the north-east receiving the lowest per-head funding in England—just a quarter of that of the east of England. Recent decisions may make things worse. Chris Day, the vice-chancellor of Newcastle University, has written to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to say:
“The decision to reduce the budget for international development projects is deeply concerning. If funds are cut such that the Hubs contracts are terminated this will lead to immediate redundancies in North East England.”
What is the Minister doing to ensure that R&D investment is shared fairly across the regions of the UK? The Labour party would champion R&D as an engine of regional progress, strengthening regional economies by rebalancing R&D investment.
Finally, we will never unlock the full potential of our research sector if we do not use the talents of everyone. There are real issues with diversity in the UK’s science and research sectors. Diversity is an economic imperative, especially as we face a shortfall of science, technology, engineering and maths workers, so what is the Minister doing to increase diversity, and how is that reflected in the Government’s funding model? Labour would build on the UK’s science successes and ensure that we continue to be an innovation nation that draws on the talents of all.
The Royal Society said that the Government’s actions are undermining their ambition for the UK to be a science superpower. Government indecision and inaction have made the impact of the pandemic worse for our critical research sector. They must now provide the long-term funding needed for the recovery.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing the debate and raising important issues for the future of research development funding. I thank all hon. Members for the quality of their contributions. There have been many enthusiastic observations, indicating the passion felt by many Members. I fully echo that sentiment, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to reiterate that R&D is absolutely central to the Government’s ambitions of unleashing innovation and continuing to cement the UK as a science superpower.
The hon. Member for Cambridge spoke of the importance of research and development, highlighting the benefit that it brings, as well as the issue of Horizon Europe. I am delighted that the United Kingdom has an agreement to take part in the Horizon Europe programme. He also rightly pointed out that R&D is about relationships as well as investments, which is why the association to Horizon has been welcomed by businesses and the research community and will bring huge benefits to the United Kingdom. The decision to associate to Horizon Europe came after the spending review, so we continue to work through where its costs will fall. We will set out our plans for R&D spend in 2021-22, including funding for Horizon Europe, in due course. I reiterate the comments made by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy earlier today that we continue to robustly defend the research budget. We are working hard to confirm R&D budgets as soon as possible.
A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Cambridge, for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) and for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), raised official development assistance. I recognise the depth of feeling across the research sector regarding ongoing funding for international development research. The impact of the pandemic on the UK economy forced the Government take some difficult decisions, including temporarily reducing the overall amount spent on aid. This has inevitably meant less funding for BEIS R&D development programmes, as it has for all areas of ODA spending. My officials are working with our delivery partners to best manage the impact of those reductions and to protect the strongest research programmes. I should add that both the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary have reiterated the Government’s commitment to international development and our intention to return to the 0.7% GNI target when the fiscal situation allows.
The hon. Member for Cambridge mentioned our commitment to the R&D road map and to developing an R&D people and culture strategy that will set out the direction and actions that Government, funders, employers and individuals can take to ensure that the R&D sector has the people it needs, working in a culture that gets the best out of everyone. I am committed to ensuring that the UK attracts, develops and retains talented individuals and strong teams to support our science superpower ambitions.
The hon. Members for Arfon (Hywel Williams) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) raised the important question of levelling up. The Government are due to publish the UK R&D places strategy in the summer. We will ensure that R&D and innovation benefits the economy and society in nations, regions and local areas across the United Kingdom, contributing to the Government’s wider levelling-up ambitions. This is about not only how much money we spend in each place, but outcomes, so our focus must be on the impact that our R&D system can have in different places across the country.
R&D is incredibly important in so many ways. It advances the boundaries of human knowledge and discovery and is a key driver of economic growth and productivity. It also enables society to solve the challenges of the future in areas of fundamental importance, such as health and climate change. As several hon. Members have noted, the UK gets significant value from its investment in R&D. Each £1 of public investment in R&D ultimately leverages around £2 of additional private sector investment and creates, on average, around £7 of net present social value.
Hon. Members will know that we published our R&D road map last July. It sets out our vision and ambition to ensure that the UK is the very best place in the world for scientists, researchers, innovators and entrepreneurs to live and work. Although we recognise the challenging economic and fiscal climate, the Government committed through the spending review in November to invest £14.6 billion in R&D in 2021-22, with BEIS, as the custodian of the R&D system, being allocated £11 billion for R&D in 2021-22. That commitment re-emphasises the importance of science, research and innovation towards our future prosperity, as well as our ambition to move towards the UK investing 2.4% of GDP in research and development by 2027.
The UK has a world-leading research base and global expertise across a wide range of disciplines. With less than 1% of the world’s population, the UK accounts for 14% of the world’s most highly cited academic publications. Our strong core research system is integral to that success, as recognised by the Chancellor in the spending review. He confirmed an ambitious multi-year settlement for UK Research and Innovation and the national academies core research budget. By 2023-24, the Government will be investing £1.4 billion more per annum in core funding for our world-leading research base compared with 2020-21.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) spoke about funding for life sciences, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his passionate and constructive contribution. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) also spoke passionately about the importance of funding for devastating conditions such as brain tumours and cancers, and I recognise the importance of such research. That is why we are committed to supporting the health and life sciences sector, where we are fortunate to boast a vibrant ecosystem that brings together researchers in some of the world’s top universities to work collaboratively with their counterparts in leading pharmaceutical companies, clinical researchers in the NHS and others. This has never been more important than in the response to covid-19, and we recognise that years of blue-sky research, enabled by the strength of the UK’s core research system, was vital to our success in developing effective vaccines so quickly. The Government continue to support that response, with commitments including £128 million to support vaccine research and manufacturing.
The rapid response to covid-19 has also led to a cultural shift around funding and decision making, with a desire to move towards a leaner and more agile system. The new Advanced Research and Invention Agency will be an independent research body that funds high-risk, high-reward scientific research, and it will complement the work of UK Research and Innovation and other research funders. ARIA will be led by a prominent world-leading scientist, who will be given the freedom to identify and fund transformational science and technology at speed. It is based on successful models that are built on giving researchers significant autonomy and freedom from bureaucracy.
Looking forward, we want to go further and build on our truly excellent UK R&D achievements, which is why we are committed to increasing UK investment in R&D to 2.4% of GDP by 2027. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) spoke about this, and about the importance of public and private investment in reaching that target. Public investment in R&D is increasing, but we must also leverage further private sector investment. UK businesses provided almost £26 billion of R&D in 2019—an increase of 3.3% compared with 2018—as part of a long-term trend of positive annual growth.
Earlier this month we published “Building Back Better: our plan for growth”, in which we announced plans to publish a new innovation strategy in the summer to inspire, facilitate and unleash innovation, supporting and harnessing the tremendous capability of UK innovators to boost future prosperity, both locally and nationwide. The Budget also announced £375 million to introduce Future Fund: Breakthrough, a new and direct co-investment product to support the scaling up of R&D-intensive businesses, and Her Majesty’s Treasury has announced that it will review R&D tax relief to ensure it remains up to date, competitive and well targeted.
In conclusion, research and development are integral to our objective of unleashing innovation. R&D will help us drive the Government’s long-term plan to build on the UK’s world-class credentials in research and development, and deliver economic growth and societal benefits across the UK for decades to come.
Daniel Zeichner
I thank all hon. Members for the high quality of their contributions, as one would expect given that we had former Science Ministers and former Secretaries of State involved. It was an excellent discussion. I am particularly grateful to the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) for mentioning the medical research charities; others picked that up, including the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas). I probably should have alluded to them in my introduction. They have been very hard hit and they do vital work.
I note, as I had expected, that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and others suggested that the golden triangle is in a privileged position. We are and we do get the lion’s share of research, but I gently suggest that when talking about levelling up we should always be aware that there is a danger of dragging down. We are world leaders, but that does not happen by accident. I have always said that future success cannot be taken for granted, and we have to make sure that we continue to support what we do very well in this country. Some of that is in the golden triangle, and we should not be ashamed to say that.
In conclusion, I say to the Minister that I am a little disappointed. I had hoped to hear a little more than that the budget would be resolved in due course and the cuts would be managed to minimise the impact. I hope that she will be fighting our corner, because this is so important, and not just for the future of this sector or for particular parts of the country. This is what we do so well. If there is a future for Britain in the world, this is it, but it cannot be done by making short-term cuts because the budget cannot be sorted out for a few months for bureaucratic reasons. I hope that the message will go back to Government loud and clear that we are looking for better.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future of research and development funding.
UN Human Rights Council: UK Voting Record on Israel
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the UK voting record at the UN Human Rights Council on Israel.
[Interruption.]
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Order. There is a Division in the House, but we do not have to suspend the sitting unless Members wish to do so.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Mr Dowd, I would like to suspend the sitting and take part in the Division.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is not on the list to speak, so it is in the grace of the Minister and the Member in charge. I am happy to suspend the sitting if other Members wish to do so, but I cannot suspend it only for the hon. Gentleman.
Jim Shannon
If the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) and the Minister want to go ahead, I am happy with that, but I have a small intervention that I would like to make. Do we have eight minutes for the Division?
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Can we move on? I call the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton).
Scott Benton
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, for the first Westminster Hall debate that I have had the privilege to lead. I refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for a fact-finding visit I undertook to Israel and the Palestinian Authority in 2019.
The landmark peace agreements signed between Israel and her Arab neighbours in recent months are an extremely welcome development after years of stagnation, but it is an unavoidable reality that the unrelenting attacks on Israel at the United Nations make regional peace harder to achieve.
It is no secret that the UN and its associated bodies have a long history of singling out Israel far more than any other nation in the world. Past UN Secretaries-General have publicly raised concerns about the UN’s fixation with Israel, with Ban Ki-moon stating in 2016 that
“decades of political manoeuvring have created a disproportionate number of resolutions, reports and committees against Israel.”
He rightly said that this bias does not help the Palestinian issue but instead foils
“the ability of the UN to fulfil its role effectively”.
His predecessor, Kofi Annan, said that while Israel faces “intense scrutiny”,
“other situations fail to elicit the world’s outrage and condemnations.”
The current UN Secretary-General has said that Israel
“needs to be treated as any other state”.
Jim Shannon
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing the debate to Westminster Hall. I fully support what he is saying. Does he agree that the targeted, sustained and passionate bias against Israel displayed at the UN is a stain on every bit of good that the UN seeks to do? Our Government and our Minister need to take firmer steps to highlight that the Israel-Palestine issue will never be resolved by continuing to peddle the false narrative perpetuated by the UN, by painting an awful picture of the victimisation of innocent Palestinians at the hands of so-called evil Israel. Will he join me in saying that this is simply false and needs to end now, if there is to be a lasting peace in the middle east that we can all subscribe to?
Scott Benton
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is a proud supporter of Israel, as are all his colleagues in the Democratic Unionist Party. I have a great deal of sympathy with his remarks.
I believe that the UK has a historic responsibility to help resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to stand up for our friend, Israel, when it is singled out for such unfair criticism in international forums. The Foreign Secretary recently said that we have
“stood up for Israel when it has faced bias, and frankly, politicised attacks in the UN and other forums.”—[Official Report, 2 March 2021; Vol. 690, c. 111.]
Our voting pattern at the UN now needs to match these warm words.
The subject of today’s debate is the UN Human Rights Council, which is currently meeting for its 46th session. The Council was established in 2006 to promote and protect human rights around the world, a laudable and just cause, which I am sure all of us would completely endorse. It is deeply regrettable that the Council has failed so comprehensively in its noble mission, while gaining a reputation as yet another politically exploited UN body. Consider that in the 15 years since its inception, the Council has passed 171 condemnations, of which more than half have targeted Israel. It is simply unjustifiable that 90 condemnations have been passed against Israel, while a mere 10 have been adopted on the world’s worst human rights abuser, Iran.
Astonishingly, no condemnations have been adopted on China, Russia, Pakistan, Venezuela or other serial human rights abusers. Instead, many of those serial violators are Council members, which of course makes a mockery of the UN’s highest human rights body. As China crushes democracy in Hong Kong, and as Venezuela stands accused of crimes against humanity, both remain members of the Council. For proof of the Council’s inbuilt conscious bias, one need look no further than the existence of the permanent country-specific stand-alone agenda item at every session. I am sure it will come as no surprise which country is targeted.
Permanent agenda item 7 is reserved for criticism of Israel, showing how deeply embedded this anti-Israel obsession has become. Motions adopted under item 7 have accused Israel of serious breaches of international law, while ignoring Palestinian rejectionism and terrorism. It is of course legitimate to highlight the plight of the Palestinian people, just as the national claims of other groups should also be given due attention. But when the blame is solely placed on Israel for the plight of the Palestinian people, with not even a superficial recognition of the numerous security challenges Israel faces, the failure of Palestinian leadership to prepare its people for a future peace agreement, and the countless peace deals rejected by the Palestinian leadership, it is clear that something has gone seriously wrong.
There is no mention of Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which terrorise Israeli civilians with rocket fire. Those terror groups use Palestinian civilians as human shields, investing in weaponry rather than welfare. Just last month a Hamas-run court ruled that women required the explicit permission of a male guardian to travel. Where was the international condemnation?
The violations of Palestinian rights in Lebanon are also conveniently forgotten by the Human Rights Council and other UN bodies, despite hundreds of thousands of Palestinians being denied the most basic freedoms, including the right to work. At each and every session of the Council, the likes of the Palestinian Authority, Syria and North Korea accuse Israel of human rights abuses, while escaping scrutiny of their own violations. Frankly, it is a student politics style stunt that is entirely unbecoming of a supposedly distinguished international forum.
It is worth reflecting that such disproportionate singling out of Israel is one of the clearest examples of contemporary antisemitism, according to the world-leading definition. Such blatant bias will not change unless it is tackled head-on and rooted out. The UK’s decision in 2017 to put the Council on notice, stating that
“If things do not change, in future we will adopt a policy of voting against all resolutions concerning Israel’s conduct...”
was a hugely welcome first step.
Our Prime Minister was right, during his time as Foreign Secretary several years ago, to describe the Council’s “disproportionate” focus on Israel as
“damaging to the cause of peace”.
In 2019, the UK said that item 7 amounted to “systemic institutional bias” and voted against all item 7 resolutions. That was another welcome step, but when an anti-Israel resolution previously adopted under item 7 was proposed under item 2 in the same session, the UK abstained rather than voting against it.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an important and timely contribution. He is rightly highlighting the systematic bias that brings the United Nations into disrepute and does nothing to aid the cause of peace and security in the middle east. Does he agree that the key issue right now—he alluded to it a few moments ago—is that the kind of biased text that has traditionally appeared under item 7, and which we as a Government have rightly committed to voting against every time, is now quietly making its way into another agenda item, sometimes with cosmetic changes, and when it appears there, we do not appear to be showing exactly the same level of commitment to voting against it? That is the issue we need to lean into this afternoon, and hopefully hear some positive remarks about from the Minister later on.
Scott Benton
I welcome that intervention from my right hon. Friend, and of course he is entirely right. If items that are moved under item 7 are then moved to item 2, but the text is substantially the same, the UK should of course oppose those, just as we would have opposed them under item 7.
The resolution in question referred to the findings of the international commission of inquiry on the 2018 Gaza border protests, which the UK refused to support as it failed to examine Hamas’s role in the violence. Despite stating that Hamas bore responsibility for the violence and recognising Israel’s right to self-defence, the UK did not oppose this one-sided resolution.
As a direct result of growing international opposition to item 7, proponents of these one-sided motions have been working to move them into other agenda items, as my right hon. Friend has just stated. In 2018, instead of challenging this procedural sleight of hand, we undermined our principled stance by abstaining. Surely, if the UK deems resolutions within item 7 to be biased, it is ultimately irrelevant where they end up on the agenda. Biased one-sided motions are biased one-sided motions, irrespective of the agenda item number attached to them. Can the Minister explain this step backwards from the previously stated pledge to vote against all anti-Israel resolutions? Will he confirm that at the current session of the Human Rights Council, with votes expected next week, the UK will call for a vote on item 7? He will know that if no country calls for a vote, the resolution passes uncontested by consensus. Given our principled and outspoken criticism of item 7, we cannot afford to rely on others.
Reports of some of the language that has been considered for inclusion in an item 2 resolution next week are deeply worrying, including language that we would have voted against had it appeared in item 7 resolutions previously. The Government have said that they will support scrutiny of Israel outside of item 7, so long as it is justified and proportionate. Does the Minister believe that a resolution that condemns violence, including acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction, but does not even mention Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad, is justified and proportionate? Does he agree that there should never be any implied equivalence between Israel’s defensive actions and indiscriminate attacks by terrorist groups?
The text also reportedly seeks to restrict arms sales to Israel, despite article 51 of the UN charter stating that countries have a right to defend themselves. I hope the Minister can reassure me that the UK will indeed vote against this harmful motion. The Foreign Secretary’s calls earlier this month for the abolition of item 7 should mean not only the end of a permanent agenda item singling out Israel for criticism; it should mean that all one-sided motions are also withdrawn, not simply moved elsewhere. Until then, we must honour our pledge to vote against all anti-Israel resolutions wherever they appear, just as we would have voted against those motions if they targeted our other allies.
Another UN body known for its bias against Israel is the UN General Assembly. While the likes of Iran, North Korea and Syria have only been condemned a handful of times, 112 resolutions condemning Israel have been adopted there since 2005. China has not been condemned once.
It is deeply worrying and regrettable that the UK voted for 12 out of 17 resolutions singling out Israel in December 2020, abstained on four and voted against only one. One of the resolutions we supported only used the term Haram al-Sharif to describe Jerusalem’s Temple Mount—Judaism’s holiest site—ignoring the Jewish connection to the site altogether.
The Abraham Accords present a momentous opportunity to reinvigorate the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians in order to achieve the two-state solution that we all hope to see. We simply must not allow this process to be derailed by allowing attacks on Israel at the UN to go completely unchallenged. At the Human Rights Council next week, we should vote with our feet and send a clear message that Israel must be treated fairly. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope that he can confirm that the UK will be calling for a vote on item 7, and voting against all anti-Israel resolutions, including any proposed outside the scope of item 7. It is time that our words were matched with actions.
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) for securing this debate and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend not just for the words that he has spoken in this debate, but for the hard work that I know he does outside this Chamber to fight against antisemitism. I have listened to, and am grateful for, the contributions and interventions made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), and I will try to cover as many points as possible.
First, let me state on the record that the UK is a proud friend of Israel. I think it is fair also to say on the record that prior to my ministerial appointment I was a member of Conservative Friends of Israel. My personal feelings aside, the UK Government’s position is that we are both happy and proud to stand up when we feel that Israel faces bias and unreasonable criticism from international institutions, or indeed from anywhere else. We agree with my hon. Friend that item 7 is an example of that bias. As he said, item 7 is unique; it is the only item on the council’s agenda that singles out an individual country for scrutiny. For many of the reasons that he mentions, we feel that this is wrong; furthermore, we believe it hinders the work of the human rights agenda that the UN seeks to pursue and actually disincentivises full co-operation in pursuit of that agenda. Rather than encouraging Israel to engage with the mechanisms and expertise that the Human Rights Council has to offer, we believe that item 7 alienates Israel.
This is an issue that has been brought up with me directly, and it is clearly one on which a number of Members of the House of Commons agree. We want Israel to engage fully with the human rights machinery. We feel that item 7 dissuades it from doing so. Item 7 damages the efforts to advance dialogue, increase stability, and build mutual trust and understanding between the Israeli and Palestinian people, and therefore damages the prospect of a sustainable, meaningful and peaceful two-state solution. That is why, at the 40th session of the Human Rights Council in March 2019, the UK adopted a principled approach in which we voted against all resolutions tabled under item 7.
Our vote sent a clear signal that the UK stands against the implicit supposition that Israel’s conduct deserves a unique focus and greater scrutiny than that of any other country in the world. The UK will continue to push for the abolition of agenda item 7. Let me make it clear that we will continue to support the scrutiny of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the Human Rights Council, as long as that scrutiny is justified, fair and proportionate and is not proposed under agenda item 7, which is why, by definition, agenda item 7 should be abolished.
My hon. Friend spoke about issues moved from agenda item 7 to other agenda items. I touch on that because it is an important distinction. It goes to the point that the UK is happy to support the scrutiny of countries, including Israel, if it is done fairly and proportionately. That is why that when the Palestinian Authority made the decision in 2019 to move resolution items from item 7 to item 2—bearing in mind that item 2 looks at a range of actions of a range of states—the UK engaged with that resolution in good faith and closely with our international partners. We ultimately chose to abstain, in keeping with the position we took in 2018 when we abstained on a resolution to create a commission of inquiry into Gaza protests. In that instance, we could not and did not support an investigation into violence that refused to call explicitly for an investigation into the action of non-state actors such as Hamas—a point that my hon. Friend made. Our expectation is that accountability must be pursued impartially, fairly and in an even-handed manner.
This Government have also chosen not to support resolutions at the Human Rights Council that include provisions that go beyond our broad policies. In 2016 and 2017, alongside other European states, we abstained on a Human Rights Council resolution that called for the creation of databases of companies involved in settlement activities in the Palestinian territories. As we said in our explanation of votes at the time, we did not believe that establishing such a database was a helpful measure or consider it appropriate for the UN Human Rights Council to take on this role. The UK has not co-operated with the process of compiling this database, nor have we encouraged UK companies to do so.
As my hon. Friend says, the 46th session of the Human Rights Council is ongoing. The Government will continue to vote against all resolutions under item 7. The Palestinian delegation has listened to our concerns and has moved some resolutions from item 7 to item 2, meaning there will now be two Palestinian-tabled resolutions under item 7, rather than the four that were under item 7 back in 2018. The Palestinians have also merged or consolidated the two items, reducing the overall number of resolutions focused on the Israeli-Palestinian situation.
Negotiations on the resolutions are ongoing. As I said, we have committed to enter in good faith into negotiations on the text of such resolutions. Our blanket opposition is to resolutions under item 7, rather than more broadly to resolutions on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We will therefore decide how we vote based purely on the merits of the resolution and on the final text that is put before the council.
Stephen Crabb
I am sorry to cut in just as the Minister is making a very important point, but I want to get some clarity. I understand the argument that he is making about engaging with the text that has moved from a permanent item 7 agenda into item 2, but if we voted against text that singles out Israel for criticism without mentioning Hamas or Islamic Jihad when it appears in item 7, surely it is morally right and logically consistent to vote against it when it appears under item 2 or anywhere else. Will he commit to vote against text exactly like that when it appears under item 2?
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I remind the Minister that we have about three minutes left.
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point, which it is worth exploring. The UK Government have a principled opposition to agenda item 7 and have therefore voted against it because of its nature. We recognise that moving away from agenda item 7 is a positive step, so our commitment is to engage with the specific text. It may well be the case that the UK Government find the final text unacceptable, but the decision will be based on the specific text rather than our principled opposition to item 7 as a tool of specific and unfair criticism of Israel. Those negotiations are ongoing, so I am not in a position to provide my right hon. Friend with the reassurances he seeks.
It should be recognised that the close and strong bilateral relationship between the UK Government and Israel gives us the opportunity to speak out when we feel that Israel’s actions warrant it, as we have done on our concerns about annexation and the demolition of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. However, it is also the Government’s position that we will continue to support and advocate balanced resolutions in UN bodies. We are committed to making progress toward a two-state solution.
Resolutions that politicise UN bodies or that risk hardening the position of either side do little to advance peace or mutual understanding. We believe that negotiations will succeed only when they are conducted between Israelis and Palestinians and supported by the international community, and we will continue to work with international bodies, regional bodies, European partners and the United States, and of course with Israel and the Palestinian leadership, to advance dialogue, to encourage joint working and to find a permanent peaceful solution to this conflict, which has gone on for too long.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Thank you for your forbearance during the Division Bells.
Question put and agreed to.
Offshore Wind Farms: Unexploded Ordnance
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will also be suspensions between each debate. I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of the debate in Westminster Hall, and Members are expected to remain for the entire debate. I must also remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times, both to one another and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and before they leave the room.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the disposal of unexploded ordnance for offshore windfarm construction.
I express my appreciation to the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) and the hon. Members for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for supporting my application for the debate. All of us welcome the extraordinary potential of our wind and wave power. As we seek to meet our climate obligations, we have a God-given asset off our shores. I think it was the Prime Minister who called Scotland the Saudi Arabia of renewables.
To the casual observer, the bonanza ahead may seem low-cost and environmentally unimpeachable. If only that were so. Alas, the 20th century’s brutal European conflicts littered our once pristine seabed with a legacy: 100,000 unexploded 20th-century bombs—a monstrous monument to brutality,
“for there is no folly of the beast of the earth which is not infinitely outdone by the madness of men”,
as Herman Melville tells us in “Moby-Dick”.
The great offshore wind turbines are anchored to the seabed, and the bombs—an estimated 100,000 of them—pose a mortal danger. What should we do with them? How do we make safe these aquatic minefields? Hitherto, we have got rid of these munitions in the crudest way possible, by blowing them up, using high-order disposal, as it is called, with a counter-explosive detonating the munition so that it can be safely moved—safe for humans, perhaps, but devastating for marine life. Due to the greater penetration of sound underwater, the explosion aftershock can travel up to 25 km. To give an idea of scale, that is roughly half the distance of the channel tunnel. Imagine the noise.
These explosions will kill any sea life nearby. If they do not die instantly, the pressure wave causes traumatic harm, such as lesions, haemorrhages and decompression sickness. Marine biologists tell us that, even if they survive the initial blasts, these can deafen aquatic mammals such as whales, porpoises and dolphins. Without hearing, they cannot communicate or navigate, leading to mass stranding. One recent example of mass stranding occurred when 39 long-finned pilot whales were stuck in the Kyle of Durness. A UK Government Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report concluded that the only external event with the potential to cause such a mass stranding was a munitions disposal operation. Nineteen of the stranded whales died. Last year, autopsies showed that scores of porpoises were deafened as a result of explosions used to clear second world war German mines in the Baltic sea. All died subsequently.
Do we have to choose between green power and mammal safety? Fortunately not. A new method of munitions disposals is available. I have seen it work. It is known as low-order deflagration, and it is a breakthrough. The technique was invented in the early 2000s and is used by the US military and 15 other countries’ navies worldwide, including our own Royal Navy, which has used it since 2005. The National Physical Laboratory has said that the new method
“shows considerable promise for noise abatement”
in bomb disposal.
In layman’s terms, this alternative system makes the bombs safe without blowing them up. It allows a small charge to penetrate the bomb casing without detonating it. That causes the explosives to burn out, and the device becomes safe. This system significantly lowers emissions and noise, thus reducing dramatically the danger to wildlife and the local environment. Scientists calculate that for some of the larger munitions, low-order deflagration could be several hundred times quieter.
Therefore, we understand the problem, and luckily the solution is straightforward. In answer to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), the Government assured her that were Ministers to become aware of evidence concerning harm caused to marine life by the disposal of munitions, they would act, and Ministers have now included a request for developers voluntarily to use deflagration
“as an initial method of mitigation”.
Saying please is nice. However, as we well know, it does not always work. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Marine Management Organisation must update their current licensing regime to ensure that deflagration is the only option for munition disposal. After all, if the Royal Navy uses this method, why should not businesses do so as well? The Secretary of State must set out a realistic timeline for this requirement, so that businesses are able to adjust. No one wants to see renewable energy construction delayed any longer than is absolutely necessary, but none of us wants to see a bloodbath on our ocean floors.
This is one of those times when party politics can be set aside and evidence-based policy can be enacted with all-party agreement. The Minister’s team asked me yesterday to outline my arguments for today, to help them to prepare a response. I was happy to do so; I doubt that there will be much disagreement between us. But I will ask something in return. I ask the Minister to take ownership of these issues and regulate as soon as possible. Perhaps we could work together and invite Labour colleagues, too.
In closing, let me thank Joanna Lumley, who brought this issue to my attention. I was delighted to accept her invitation to become involved—indeed, who could resist?
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I intend to give Back-Bench Members an indicative time—four minutes, please.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con) [V]
Thank you, Mr Dowd; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) on securing the debate. He has highlighted a very important concern.
I am a supporter of offshore wind. It is bringing significant benefits to my constituency, and there is the potential for it to do even more over the next 30 years. In the southern North sea, there will be an enormous expansion of wind farms, which will create jobs and play a key role in the transition to net zero, but this exponential growth brings challenges with it. Our marine environment is an extremely sensitive and precious resource, and we have a duty to manage UK waters in a responsible and sustainable way, passing them on in a better condition than they were in when we inherited them.
That is not an easy task, as our seas are becoming incredibly busy. Off the East Anglian coast, there are, as well as wind farms, rich fishing grounds, gas fields in which we can store carbon, interconnectors, cables, busy shipping lanes and areas where dredging takes place. I believe that the time is right to review the regulatory framework and to pursue an ecosystem approach that takes full account of the many different marine resources.
With regard to the specific subject of this debate, it is important to point out that developers are bringing forward innovative techniques that significantly decrease the impact of detonating UXOs. ScottishPower Renewables has trailed deflagration and the use of bubble curtains on the East Anglia ONE wind farm, and has given an undertaking to continue with that on the forthcoming East Anglia Hub. The Government must work with and encourage industry to come forward with new and innovative techniques that minimise disturbance to the marine environment. The UK has a good track record of doing that, and it can bring economic benefits as we promote those new technologies globally.
We must also put in place policies that reduce the risk of conflict between the many marine activities. The report by REAF—Renaissance of East Anglian Fisheries —highlighted the significant increase in wind farms along the East Anglian coast and the fact that the displacement of fishing is not being properly taken into account in the marine planning and consenting system. We recommended that more use be made of existing data, so as to manage potential conflicts between fishing and offshore wind. I urge the Government to adopt that recommendation, and I am happy to provide the Minister with further details.
The rapid growth of offshore wind is a great British success story, but as the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire has highlighted, it can bring unintended and serious consequences. By working collaboratively within a planning and regulatory framework that is fit for purpose—it does need updating—we can meet those challenges and properly and fully build back better.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) [V]
A number of constituents contacted me about this issue last year, so I am pleased that the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) managed to secure the debate.
Offshore wind is absolutely essential to our efforts to decarbonise the UK grid and combat the climate emergency. Although I welcome the Government’s commitment to quadruple offshore wind capacity by 2030, and the funding package announced last October, we need much more sustained financial support and real leadership from the Government if we are to maximise the true potential of wind power as a clean energy source and promote green jobs and enterprise for the UK supply chain. We still need to see much more from the Government on a green recovery package to take us along that path.
As we have heard, the unexploded ordnance in British waters—the figure I have is 500,000 or so items—remains a considerable threat. That terrible legacy of two world wars is not just an obstacle to the construction of offshore wind farms, but a danger to marine life, so it is vital that we safely clear those mines. We cannot let their detonation come at the expense of biodiversity and marine life; we need to identify environmentally sensitive ways to clear them.
The traditional method of detonating the explosives can prove extremely damaging, as we have heard. The images on the Stop Sea Blasts website, which I congratulate on its campaign, are shocking, as are the reports about the mass stranding of pilot whales, the death of porpoises, and how detonation deafens many marine mammals, confusing their navigation systems and causing long-term harm. The blasts also spread toxic chemicals into our oceans, further damaging marine life.
It does not have to be that way, however: there are deflagration methods that burn out the explosive content of mines and cause considerably less damage to surrounding marine life. The Government have stated on the record that they are investigating deflagration as an alternative to detonation. The first phase of the ongoing study by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has shown positive results, so I hope that we see a shift to that method as soon as possible, and I would welcome an update on that from the Minister.
Despite their boasts, the Government’s record to date on marine conservation in UK waters is pretty woeful. They have really dragged their feet on creating the ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas that we need, which was first set in motion during the last days of the last Labour Government. The MPAs that have been created are essentially paper parks and offer no significant protection to marine life. The Government recently stripped out of the Fisheries Bill amendments promoting conservation and marine stewardship. With those past failures in mind, we need a firm commitment from the Minister that the Government will act now to protect our marine life.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) on securing this important debate. Quite a lot of constituents have written to me about it. Initially, I was not aware of how extensive this issue is, but through correspondence with my constituents and the lobby group on sea blasts, I have learned a great deal more, and the hon. Gentleman very ably laid out the case.
There needs to be a clear strategy to tackle the issue of unexploded ordnances in the waters surrounding the UK. The number I have differs from that given by the hon. Gentleman, so I will allow the record to stand with what he said. As he pointed out, these are leftover unexploded ordnances from past conflicts that are still lying on our seabed. We are still having to deal today with a century of conflict. It is a historical issue that has come back to us in the present day. It is pressing, because of our urgent need to invest in more offshore wind. Given that unexploded ordnance disposal is a key step in the provision of our future energy needs, the Government must explore ways of delivering it safely and with minimum impact on the environment. It is not good enough to allow our marine life to be adversely affected by such a critical step.
Exploding unexploded ordnances can have a significant noise impact, which is likely to disrupt the hearing ability of significant numbers of marine wildlife. Their hearing is essential for their navigation, communication and feeding habits. That kind of damage can have a huge impact on whole populations of marine wildlife. Exploding unexploded ordnances can also lead to toxic and chemical waste in the water, which has an obvious negative impact on biodiversity.
There are better ways of clearing ordnances, and they urgently need to be explored. In particular, low-order deflagration has been found to be effective. A recent joint study by the National Physical Laboratory—I should declare that I am proud to be a former employee of NPL in Teddington—and Loughborough University found that deflagration as a way of clearing ordnances could significantly lower noise emissions. That is something that must urgently be taken forward.
It is urgent and vital that the Government explore alternatives to explosion so that our marine life can be protected at the same time as we enable our renewable energy programme to expand as necessary to meet the Government’s plans for net zero. The failure to take action points to a larger Government failure to set out clear plans for achieving net zero. So far, we have had a set of aspirations set out in the 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution, but it is backed up by very little strategy or investment. If there had been a greater focus on the practicalities of how net zero was going to be delivered, consideration would already have been given to this matter.
DEFRA must urgently update its guidance to the Marine Management Organisation and other organisations that are required to remove unexploded ordnances. The need to tackle climate change is urgent, and the path to net zero must lie through our expansion of offshore wind. We cannot allow that expansion to negatively impact on our marine life. The solution to that conflict is straightforward, and I urge DEFRA to adopt it without delay.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) [V]
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) on securing this very important debate. I was the Minister for the marine environment for four years under the previous Labour Government, and I took through the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, which at the time was groundbreaking. I add my voice to those of colleagues of all parties in this debate who have said that that legislation and the regulatory framework governing these practices needs updating.
I might try Members’ patience slightly because I come at this from a different angle. Deflagration can have huge benefits both in the marine and land-based environment, as we have experienced recently in Exeter. Colleagues might have seen the news coverage of the recent controlled explosion of the Exeter bomb, but they might not be aware that that “controlled” explosion—I use that word advisedly—caused considerable damage to surrounding properties. People can get an idea from the video footage of how much damage would be done in a marine environment by such a powerful explosion in terms of both noise and physical damage in the immediate environment.
I want to use a few seconds of this debate to request that the Minister—I cannot see her very clearly because the picture is so small, but I think she is the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), a fellow south-west MP—does what she can to try to persuade the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence to answer the questions that my constituents have put to them, because they are still in a state of great uncertainty following that controlled explosion. I have been contacted by several retired bomb disposal experts who believe that the alternative, much less damaging process could have been followed in this case. Numerous properties were damaged, and some are still not inhabitable. Residents had to be moved out for several days, and residents of a care home are still not back. They are being told by their insurance companies that the companies are not liable and that liability rests with the Government—either the MOD or the Home Office. Will the Minister or her officials listening to this debate please try to get me answers from the Defence Secretary and Home Secretary? I have asked them, but I am still waiting.
On the marine side, I completely agree that we can learn from what has been common practice in land-based bomb disposal for a very long time. There are alternatives to simply blowing up this stuff and causing the sort of havoc that we see in the marine environment and that we saw in Exeter recently, with very serious structural damage done to numerous local properties that might have been avoided if we had used less explosive and less damaging alternatives.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) for calling this important debate on a matter of grave concern to some of my own constituents and, as we have already heard, to those across the United Kingdom.
I have received letters in support of Joanna Lumley’s Stop Sea Blasts campaign, which is supported by Marine Connection, Whale and Dolphin Conservation, World Cetacean Alliance, and Advocating Wild. I thank everyone who is doing that fantastic work right across the UK. I have written to the Government on constituents’ behalf and I have tabled written questions, as has already been highlighted. I have also submitted an early-day motion on this matter, so I urge other hon. Members to look at it and consider signing it.
In summing up for the Scottish National party, I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their excellent contributions today. It has been a thorough debate highlighting to the Minister many of the main issues of concern, and has included contributions from the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), and the hon. Members for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and for Waveney (Peter Aldous).
Stop Sea Blasts is concerned with the future of marine mammals that rely on their auditory systems for navigation and communication. Those systems are rendered ineffective by the detonation of unexploded ordnance. Efforts to drive a green and sustainable future by the expansion of offshore wind farms should not come at the expense of harming marine mammals such as whales, dolphins and porpoises. Explosions can have deadly consequences for marine mammals. We would do well not to forget the mass stranding of 39 pilot whales at Kyle of Durness on the north highland coast following munition clearances in 2011. The future of many marine mammals is already, as we know, precarious. Many are vulnerable or at risk of extinction as a result of human activity already, so we must do everything we can to secure their survival for future generations to marvel at in wonder. That is all the more important, I believe, in the light of the upcoming G7 at Carbis Bay and the United Nations COP26 later this year in Glasgow, where discussions will focus on how to implement a greener future for all.
The wind power potential of Scotland both onshore and offshore must play a crucial part in the drive towards net zero and beyond. We can use the opportunity to lead, by setting ambitious targets for the protection of the environment, and, in doing so, to address the sustainable development goals. Stopping sea blasts and using deflagration will protect marine mammals from harm, but there is another benefit. Protecting life below water relates to sustainable development goal 14, and as we develop offshore wind farms to reach sustainable goal 7 on affordable and clean energy, we can implement sustainable development goal 13 on climate action—everything works in harmony.
The Government must set ambitious targets for the protection of the environment, and for our future. I have no doubt that wind power will be a topic of much discussion through COP26, just as it should be. The drive towards a sustainable future should not jeopardise the future survival of marine wildlife, which is already vulnerable to eco-stress. Deflagration should be used, as we have already heard, instead of sea blasts. COP26 in Scotland and the G7 represent perfect opportunities for the Government to set out their commitment to act on the issue. I urge the Minister to prioritise the matter in conversations with ministerial colleagues in the lead up to that crucial conference.
We need updated guidance to be published, and evidence gaps to be identified, as well as funding for research on the impacts. However, guidance and evidence offer little protection without political will and commitment, so they must not be mistaken for anything more than a first step. I urge the Government to prioritise those programmes and publish their findings without delay, and to act to enforce their findings wherever and whenever possible, to make sure that we have a sustainable, climate-friendly future for all.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) on securing the debate. I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Opposition.
As we have heard from many Members today, the issue of unexploded ordnance in our seas is a far-reaching one. There are no official estimates of how many unexploded devices sit on our seabed, but as we increase our use of renewable energy—and we welcome increasing construction of wind farms in our seas, which the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) highlighted—the issue of munitions must be addressed and dealt with. The creation of an offshore wind farm should not come at the cost of irreparable damage to the seabed and vulnerable marine species. It is clearly preferable for wind farms to be constructed offshore. The risk and disruption at sea are clearly less. In my constituency just last week a blade flew off a wind turbine. Luckily no one was hurt, but there is clearly a risk to human life. Where we can extend offshore wind at sea that is preferable, but clearly that comes at a risk to the seabed and to marine life.
As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), using high order detonation methods to remove munitions from the seabed is causing undue harm. Many species of marine life rely on their hearing to navigate around our waters, establish feeding patterns, and communicate with other mammals. High-order detonation has been found to cause irreversible noise trauma to thousands of sea mammals, as discussed by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). A 2015 study found that 88 explosions in one year would be likely to cause about 1,200, and possibly more than 5,000, permanent hearing loss events. In the five years since that study, we have seen an increase of 13 new wind farms in British waters, which contain a combined total of 853 individual wooden turbines. Does the Minister agree that a more up-to-date assessment of the harm caused to our vulnerable marine life is well overdue? We need to establish the damage caused by more recent detonations, so that we can understand the scale of the problem today.
Low-order deflagration is said to cause far less damage to our marine life and seabeds than high-order detonation, yet detonation remains the most common method of clearing unexploded ordnance in preparation for the construction of offshore wind farms. My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) spoke with great experience and knowledge of that alternative, and of its benefits. Surely protecting our marine life and seas should be a major factor in the decision about whether to move to the use of low-order deflagration methods in place of detonation. We should not have to tolerate any more manmade tragedies, such as what happened at Kyle of Durness in 2011, when 39 long-finned pilot whales became stranded in the bay area after being displaced from their habitat following a high-order blast. Nineteen sadly died, and the subsequent DEFRA report concluded that a high-order blast
“was the only external event with the potential to cause the Mass Stranding Event.”
In June 2020, the National Physical Laboratory published a report funded by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The report appears to favour low-order deflagration over high-order detonation, but there has been no move from the Government to implement any changes following the report’s publication. Instead, we are told that there will now be a third, and potentially a fourth, stage of the report in order to
“further improve the information base”.
Will the Minister give an indication of when the findings of the third phase will be published, and whether there is a commitment to move straight into the fourth stage? When that is completed, do we expect to see a change in legislation to preserve vulnerable marine life and our seabeds? Given that the reports have been commissioned by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and that this is obviously an issue that has far-reaching consequences for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, can the Minister tell us what ongoing discussions DEFRA has had with BEIS on this issue?
As everyone in the debate is aware, we are in the midst of a climate crisis, which is something that the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) spoke about at some length. An increase in renewable energy sources needs to be made available, and more offshore wind farms is one of the best ways to achieve that. Indeed, at the end of 2020, there were a further nine offshore wind farms under construction. When finished, they will have a combined total of an extra 619 turbines. On the one hand, that is a positive move in the fight against the climate crisis, but it should not come at the cost of threatening our marine life. The Government have previously said that they
“recognise the potential for significant impact of underwater noise from unexploded ordnance (UXO) clearance on vulnerable marine species”,
and that they are
“taking active steps to manage and reduce the risk.”
In conclusion, can the Minister outline the steps being taken and give a commitment that further action will be taken to ensure the waters around the UK, and the species that live there, are protected?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) for securing this debate on the very important issue of detonating unexploded ordnance in the wake of the growing offshore wind industry. He is not alone in his interest in this area; we had a great many eloquent speakers, all of whom I thank for their interest. We share a great interest. I am particularly interested in this issue, and I am very pleased to have the chance to talk about it today.
I want to thank all the Members who have spoken, including my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), the hon. Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), and the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw). The debate has really brought the issue into sharp focus. We have also had it raised recently by the Stop Sea Blasts campaign, which has contacted me about it.
I want to set the record straight by saying that protecting the whole marine environment—both habitats and species— is a key commitment of the Government. DEFRA’s 25-year environment plan sets out ambitions and targets to improve our marine environment and protect it for future generations. Of course, that plan will be the first environmental improvement plan for the Environment Bill, which is making its way through Parliament. I refer all those who have spoken today to the Westminster Hall debate I responded to this morning about the marine landscape. That was all about marine protections, and it touched on many of the things that hon. Friends and hon. Members have asked about today. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) secured that debate, and in it I highlighted that we have made a great deal of progress in just the past 10 years on marine protection in the UK: we now have 371 designated marine protection areas, protecting 38% of UK waters and spanning 340,000 sq km. Internationally, the UK is advocating for the protection of at least 30% of the global ocean within marine protected areas by 2030.
I also highlight that leaving the common fisheries policy has given us extra ability to put protections in place and create management arrangements in our MPAs that previously would have been very difficult, particularly in our offshores. We have used our bylaws on the inshore area; now we can use them on the offshore area to do much more specific, sustainable management, which touches on what my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney was pointing out when he was calling for a much more joined-up, holistic, sustainable approach to a marine strategy. We have our marine strategy, and it is very much moving in that direction. I also add, because it is relevant to this conversation, that cetaceans—whales, porpoises and dolphins—are legally protected species in UK waters.
Let us just touch on the expansion of offshore wind. Alongside all of our environmental ambitions, we have further targets to help tackle the climate crisis and secure a green recovery from covid-19, and we have set targets for reaching net zero by 2050, one of the most ambitious targets in the world. Right at the heart of the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan for a green recovery—which I think was touched on by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock)—is this commitment to quadruple offshore wind energy to produce 40 GW by 2030, which is a huge commitment and has massive support. I think every hon. Friend and hon. Member who has spoken today has supported that ambition, which is central to achieving net zero and reducing carbon emissions.
However, and really importantly, the Government are also committed to leaving the environment in a better state than we found it, so we are very clear that the offshore wind must not come at the expense of the marine environment. As has been highlighted, there are now multiple calls on the marine space in many areas: everybody wants to get their hands in the water, so to speak, whether for carbon storage, fishing, oil and gas, or all of these different challenges. I wanted to make very clear that DEFRA is working closely with BEIS to come up with the right balance and approach for delivering sustainable offshore wind and a sustainable, well-managed and well-protected marine space.
Turning to the noise issue—the underwater noise impacts—we recognise that underwater noise can cause significant damage and disturbance to marine life. That is why the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working so closely with Departments, statutory nature conservation bodies, and marine industries to reduce the impacts on sensitive species such as marine mammals. However, as has been highlighted quite clearly by all speakers, unexploded ordnance continues to be a dreadful legacy, particularly of the second world war, and removing these items from the seabed is absolutely vital for the safe construction of offshore wind and other marine industries. There is some dispute about how many of these bombs there actually are; my figures were between 300,000 and 500,000. I think the 100,000 figure referred to by the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire is the tonnage of the unexploded bombs, but however many it is, it is a great many, and it is a really significant issue.
I want to give reassurance that at the moment, the highest levels of protection possible are put into place for our marine mammals and our environment while these removals take place. Any removal of unexploded ordnance must be individually assessed in accordance with our habitats regulations. A marine species licence is also required if the activity is likely to negatively affect a protected species, which includes all dolphins, whales and porpoises. Marine mammal specialists are deployed to ensure that no marine animals are in the vicinity. I said, “Well, how are you going to do that?” Acoustic devices can be put into the water to try to keep them away from the area where the bomb is going to be exploded. Bubble curtains can also be put around the area. They create bubbles that take away a lot of the sound created by the explosion. There are, therefore, already things in place.
I take note of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Exeter. I saw what he spoke of on my local news, coming as I do from Taunton. I urge colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to take note of the impacts that he highlighted very clearly.
Everybody who has spoken is right—there is more to be done in this space. We also recognise that, given the huge expansion of offshore wind, there will be increases in the levels of underwater noise. That is why DEFRA has recently secured a £4.3 million fund from the Treasury for a cross-Government programme to facilitate the sustainable delivery of offshore wind in the marine environment. That includes a dedicated focus team for reducing the impacts of underwater noise. They are working on this, to get better evidence, data and solutions.
Deflagration, which many colleagues have raised today, is a potentially quieter and less destructive alternative to detonating unexploded ordnance. As mentioned, this issue was raised by the Stop Sea Blasts campaign. Indeed, Joanna Lumley wrote to the Prime Minister just last week and her letter was shared with me. Like Joanna, I am keen that we take care of our vulnerable marine species and that we do the very best we can. The Government are testing and investigating the feasibility of deflagration. In recent weeks and months, we have been in discussions with providers of this technology, the Royal Navy and scientists who are exploring its success, the noise mitigations, the level of risk and its safety.
The Marine Management Organisation fully considers potential mitigation to effectively manage underwater noise before issuing a licence for unexploded ordnance clearance. It already requests that developers investigate and use this deflagration method where feasible, as referenced by the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire.
We welcome the testing funded by BEIS and the industrial strategy last year. The testing has been carried out inland, in a quarry. It is producing strong evidence that the technique results in significant and positive noise reduction, but we need to be sure of its safety and effectiveness out in the much wider marine space, because users of the marine environment have raised quite a lot of concerns about its reliability, effectiveness and safety. We would not want some of the explosive to be left there—we have to be super sure that it does the whole job. It is hard to get all the evidence, but that is what we need. We need to know, however it has been dealt with, that it is safe for other operators, vessels, mariners and developers working in the marine space, but we do not yet have evidence of its safety and effectiveness. We need to be sure of that.
The wider marine space complicates the issue because of the challenges caused by water movements, greater depths, poor visibility and partially buried, partly degrading explosives. That makes real-life ordnance removal in the marine environment more challenging than it is in the controlled quarry site, but that is why we are working closely with scientist to gather the evidence and asses the risks with all speed, and that will continue.
To respond to the shadow Minister’s point, following the completion of the third phase of the analysis work, we will, potentially, go into the fourth phase, involving offshore fieldwork to explore these issues with all speed. We will report back once we have the details and are content with what we feel safe with.
I want to touch on the wider issue of noise. It is not just the noise from exploding ordnance that our fellow creatures face in the sea. There are many other forms of noise. A great deal of work is being done to consider how underwater noise can be monitored and managed more strategically—my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney touched on this—to reduce harm and to enable the sustainable and responsible growth of the offshore wind sector, which is so important to all of us. It is a growing and important area on the shores of England and Scotland.
There is no doubt that underwater noise is increasing and there are concerns. That is why I welcome—the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow mentioned this—the guidance on underwater noise for statutory nature conversation bodies, which was published last June. This important guidance includes information on noise thresholds that should not be exceeded in special areas of conservation for harbour porpoise. That should help to avoid significant disturbance of vulnerable marine species.
Through DEFRA’s offshore wind enabling actions programme, we have set up a strategic advice group, comprised of policy makers, regulators, industry representatives, statutory nature conservation bodies, the Crown Estate, which is really important in this area, environmental organisations and a range of scientific experts, to see what else we can do in this space, including looking at new techniques. A number of today’s contributors have urged us to look at all techniques and to apply new technology. I hope I am making it clear that I think this is a really important area to get right.
The Government’s commitment to using offshore wind and our drive to achieve net zero are to be applauded, as is our commitment to protecting our marine environment. Getting the balance right is key, and part and parcel of that, of course, is reducing the impact of underwater noise, finding strategic solutions and protecting our vulnerable species, in particular in relation to the concern about unexploded ordnance.
I again thank the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire for securing the debate. It has been a good debate and it has shown that we are all in the same waters, so to speak, and that we all want to drive forward to get this right.
John Nicolson [V]
I thank all the people and constituents who asked for this debate, and the hon. Members who have spoken. I felt the Minister’s pain as she tried to cope with saying “East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow” a couple of times.
I was interested to hear the Minister say that whales, dolphins and porpoises are legally protected. They are not being protected if they are being blown up, which is what is happening at the moment. The Minister asked a number of times whether deflagration works, what the evidence is, and whether it is safe. Those are all excellent questions, but we already know the answers because the method has been tried around the world. We do not have to do our own independent research when research is available from other countries.
There is only one question that Members across the room want an answer to, and it is this: will the Minister ban the bomb—yes or no? Sadly, the answer appears to be maybe. I hope there is speedy progress.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the disposal of unexploded ordnance for offshore windfarm construction.
Written Statement
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Government Response to the Fire Safety 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)
My noble Friend the Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) has today made the following written ministerial statement:
Today, the Government publishes their response to the Fire Safety Consultation held from 20 July-12 October 2020.
This public consultation was a vital step in a process to ensure that the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (the ‘Fire Safety Order’) continues to be fit for purpose as part of the Government’s consideration of the reform of the wider building safety landscape. The consultation sought views on a number of proposals to:
Strengthen the FSO and improve compliance in all regulated premises (section 1).
Implement the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 1 report recommendations that require a change in the law (section 2).
Improve the effectiveness of consultation between building control bodies and fire and rescue authorities on planning for building work and the arrangements for the handover of fire safety information (section 3).
We received feedback from over 250 stakeholders with an interest in building and fire safety, including residents, responsible persons and enforcing authorities, which we have used to inform our response. The Government have listened, and now we are taking action.
We will be bringing forward a number of changes to the Fire Safety Order, legislating where necessary primarily via the Building Safety Bill, as well as through building regulations fire safety guidance, to strengthen fire safety in all regulated buildings. We will:
Improve the quality of fire risk assessments by requiring that a Responsible Person (RP) must not appoint a person to assist them with undertaking a fire risk assessment unless they are competent and a requirement on all RPs to record their completed fire risk assessments and prescribed information. The name and or organisation of any person engaged by the RP to undertake all or part of the fire risk assessment will also need to be recorded to assist enforcing authorities undertaking enforcement action to establish compliance.
Improve the identification of RPs by requiring them to record—and update as necessary—who they are, and the extent of their responsibility under the Fire Safety Order, and to include a UK based address. This will sit alongside a further proposal to require all RPs to take reasonable steps to identify themselves to each other where they share or have duties in respect of the same premises. A new requirement will also be introduced to ensure that information is transferred effectively between outgoing RPs and their replacements.
Amend existing provision relating to statutory guidance for RPs to include provision that failure to follow such guidance may be considered in court proceedings for breaches of the Order as evidence of such a breach, and conversely proof of following guidance may be considered as evidence of compliance.
Increase the level of fines from Level 3 (£1,000) to Level 5 (unlimited) for offences in relation to the impersonation of an inspector, failure to comply with specific requirements imposed by an inspector, and failure to comply with requirements relating to the installation of luminous tube signs.
Amend the guidance in approved document B of the building regulations to require all new buildings above 11 metres to provide a readily locatable, accessible and secure premises information box, to tie in with the height threshold for new buildings to require sprinklers and signage.
The Fire Safety Consultation consulted on a range of areas to strengthen fire safety. Where further work is required to develop policy, we will continue to consider the findings of the consultation and engage with the sector and stakeholders to inform ongoing policy development in these areas.
The Fire Safety Consultation also included proposals to implement recommendations from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 1 report requiring changes to the law. We will consider these proposals further in light of the consultation responses and—subject to the Fire Safety Bill gaining Royal Assent—intend to lay regulations before the second anniversary of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 1 report which will deliver on the Inquiry’s recommendations. These will include measures around checking fire doors and lifts.
Three of these proposals related to Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs). The Government’s commitment to implementing the Inquiry’s recommendations remains undimmed, as does our commitment to ensure those most affected by the tragic events at Grenfell Tower—the bereaved and survivors—continue to have a voice in their implementation. It is important that we get this right and ensure the voice of residents and those likely to be affected by the proposals are heard. That is why we have decided to undertake a further consultation this spring to seek additional views on the complex issue of personal emergency evacuation plans in relation to the proposals to implement the relevant Grenfell recommendations. Further details about this will be available soon on the Government’s website.
Finally, proposals to improve the engagement between Building Control Bodies and Fire Authorities in reviewing plans for building work and for the handover of fire safety information to the RP on completion will be implemented through changes to legislation and guidance.
We are determined to ensure that the public feel safe and are safe from fire in all regulated premises regardless of where they live, stay or work. These changes, alongside the Fire Safety Bill, Building Safety Bill and planned overhaul of the statutory guidance provided under the Fire Safety Order are important steps needed to strengthen the whole regulatory system for building and fire safety. Taken together they will help to ensure there is greater accountability and responsibility for fire and structural safety issues throughout the lifecycle of all buildings regulated by the Fire Safety Order.
Further detail of the changes we are making can be found in the consultation response. The consultation response will be available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/fire-safety.
A copy will also be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS851]
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask all Members to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
Retirement of a Member: Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I should next like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from today, of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for his much-valued service to the House.
Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Drug-related Mental and Behavioural Disorder Hospital Admissions
Lord Farmer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the 21 per cent increase in hospital admissions for drug-related mental and behavioural disorders since 2009/10; and what action they intend to take as a result of any such assessment.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, in 2019-20 there were 7,027 admissions for drug-related mental and behavioural disorders. Admissions were 5% lower that year than in the previous year and 18% lower than at their peak in 2015-16. The factors driving changes in this data are complex. None the less, admissions are too high and the Government are committed to further progress in reducing them, including through increased funding for drug treatment and mental health services and improving co-ordination between their provision.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her Answer. Cannabis use does not just lead to mental ill-health and behavioural disorders; it is also contributing to the existential threat that is falling fertility levels and particularly falling sperm counts across the western world. Do the Government recognise the seriousness of these outcomes from recreational drug use and will they factor them into policy decisions, rather than being deterred by liberal individualism?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, any illegal drug use, including use of cannabis, can be harmful both from immediate side-effects and from long-term physical and mental health problems. It can, for some, have a negative impact on fertility. Cannabis is classed as a class B drug, which is a matter for the Home Office, but there are no plans to change that classification.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]
Look, my Lords, there is no great mystery: people with mental health problems have seen their community services reduce over time, which means that there is an inevitable increase in admissions to hospitals under a section of the Mental Health Act. The promised reform of the Mental Health Act might help and will be welcome in any event, but it is obvious that more resources in community support are needed to prevent admissions, as well as an increase in the numbers of skilled professionals to provide the therapy. What is the Government’s plan to improve these mental health services outside hospitals and where are the necessary resources?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to increasing resources for drug treatment services in England next year and we have put in an extra £80 million for that. That will fund, among other things, additional in-patient detox beds. We are also committed to increasing the resources that go into mental health treatments through the NHS long-term plan.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]
My Lords, with the number of people across the United Kingdom suffering from drug-related mental and behavioural disorders at a serious level, what education awareness or other preventive measures are the Government providing to stem the tide of drug-related illnesses? When will adequate mental health resources be made available? What percentage of those admitted to hospital with these illnesses are readmissions?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, one of the complexities in the data that I referred to is that we do not know whether the increase in admissions relates to different people being admitted each time or multiple readmissions among people with drug misuse problems and mental health issues. On education, Public Health England’s Rise Above social marketing campaign aims to equip 11 to 16 year-olds with the skills required to reject or manage risky behaviours, including taking drugs. Talk to FRANK is the Government’s drugs information and advice service, which provides information and advice to young people and parents to help to protect children from drugs and/or alcohol misuse.
Baroness Stroud (Con) [V]
My Lords, a recent report from the Centre for Social Justice found that the number of young people in treatment for drug and alcohol dependency had dropped by 35% since 2009. It is accepted, however, that this cannot be explained by differing consumption levels. Since 2014, approximately 30 residential rehabilitation centres have been forced to sell assets to survive public funding cuts. What assessment, if any, have the Government made of the CSJ report recommendations, including returning funding to the sector to at least the levels of 2012 and the creation of a prevention and recovery agency for the formulation of an addiction strategy?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, to address this, we have asked Dame Carol Black to complete part 2 of a review of drugs to look at treatment for people with substance misuse problems. As I said earlier, we have increased the funding for drug treatment services in England next year, including for additional in-patient detox beds.
Baroness Barker (LD)
We now have several reports showing that LGBT people have a greater than average incidence of mental health and substance misuse problems. Yet there is no mention of this community in the latest mental health proposals and a complete absence of any mention of this group of people in the NHS plan. What will the Government do to make the leadership of the NHS stop ignoring this particular bunch of taxpayers?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, in April 2019, we appointed Dr Michael Brady as the first national adviser on LGBT healthcare, and we also had the £1 million LGBT health and social care fund to tackle health inequalities experienced by LGBT people. Projects funded by that initiative included Advonet, which developed a self-advocacy course for LGBT people with mental health issues, and training by the Royal College of General Practitioners for GPs and surgery staff on LGBT health and inequality.
Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that there will be an advertising campaign highlighting how recreational cocaine use destroys the lives of vulnerable young people because of county lines activity? Can she ensure that the campaign includes cannabis and skunk use, not least because of the mental health harms raised by my noble friend, which we as a nation are increasingly concerned about?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, there are the two educational campaigns that I have already referred to: PHE’s Rise Above social marketing campaign and Talk to FRANK. My noble friend mentioned county lines activity, which is of great concern to the Government. On 20 January, we announced £40 million of dedicated investment to tackle drug supply and county lines and to surge our activity against these ruthless gangs.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, alcohol is by far and away the most common and popular drug, yet 9% of people with alcohol dependence account for 59% of alcohol-related admissions to hospital, which take up 1.4 million beds a year. This seems a shameful waste of resources and source of human misery. Can the Minister assure me that the detox beds are only a part of the solution, as just taking someone away from alcohol for four days will not be a long-term solution?
Baroness Penn (Con)
Absolutely. Part 2 of Dame Carol Black’s review of drugs, which should report to the Government shortly, is expected to include recommendations on what can be done nationally and locally to tackle drug and substance misuse and the support needed for those who face addiction and mental health issues.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, in 2019, five out of 12 English regions did not have a doctor training to specialise in addiction psychiatry. Indeed, funding for addiction services in England fell by 29% in real terms from 2013 to 2020—and we can add to that the fact that virtually all services and treatments available have been disrupted by the Covid-19 epidemic. Do the Government have a plan to address the regional disparities of drug misuse and drug-related mental and behavioural disorders?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right that we need to do more in this area and that Covid has made it harder. That is one reason why the Government have announced an additional £500 million for 2021-22 to support NHS mental health services to recover from the pandemic, address wait times and invest in the NHS workforce.
Baroness Janke (LD) [V]
What plans do the Government have to address the shortfall in supported housing for vulnerable people, such as recovering drug and alcohol users and people with mental health issues?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to putting more funding into both the provision of more affordable housing and more social housing, which will help to address these issues.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
The long-term use of cannabis and high-strength cannabis contribute a great deal to diseases of the mind and the brain. Have their effects been factored into social care and dementia strategies and the long-term NHS plans? Can the Minister elaborate on that?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, one challenge among drug treatment services is an ageing population for certain drug users. I will certainly take my noble friend’s point away and write to him with any further details.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the terms of reference of the Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform include (1) reviewing existing employment rights, and (2) making recommendations for reform; whether trade unions will be consulted as part of any such review; and when they expect the review (1) to be completed, and (2) to be published.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, the terms of reference for the task force have been published on GOV.UK. The task force has been commissioned by the Prime Minister to consider opportunities for regulatory reform independently, and to report to him in April. It is a matter for the task force to decide its focus within its terms of reference, and a matter for the Prime Minister as to whether the report will be published.
Lord Hendy (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. On 19 January, BEIS confirmed that a post-Brexit review of workers’ rights was under way; on 25 January, it was confirmed that the plan had been scrapped; on 2 February the task force was announced with a remit to
“scope out … how the UK can take advantage of our newfound regulatory freedoms”.
The chronology provokes nervousness but, for the moment, I do not pursue the reduction of workers’ rights. Instead, I ask: who outside government is being consulted and when will we see the Government’s employment Bill?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as to the employment Bill, I am not the Minister responsible but I will answer on the matter before the House. I draw the noble Lord’s attention to the third part of the terms of reference, which mentions
“maintaining the Government’s commitment to high environmental standards and worker protections”.
I hope that allays his fears.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, the Covid pandemic has affected young people particularly hard in their education and when beginning their careers. To this end, and in terms of “Build back better” and this task force, will the Government put an end to the pernicious practice of unpaid internships? The Prime Minister and the public are in favour of a prohibition. Does my noble friend agree that this would be a clear illustration of levelling up and a labour market that works for everyone?
Lord True (Con)
Again, my noble friend asks me a question which goes well beyond my remit in the Cabinet Office. I note and respect what he says. The Government’s position is that, for some internships, early years in the labour market can help in securing work and gaining experience. However, he raises important issues. As for the task force issue, that is an independent matter for the task force.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
The UK has a hard-won reputation, internationally,
“as a great place to set up and scale a business due to its stable and predictable regulatory environment, competitive product and labour markets and dynamic financial sector”.
Regarding the Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform, does the Minister agree that we should beware of opportunism at the expense of a more strategic approach and that regulation must be in the service of building a competitive, dynamic and future-focused economy, including net zero, digital, R&D and innovation, and life sciences, for example? Does he also agree that with the UK’s leadership of the G7 and COP 26, we have a chance to reinforce our commitment to international co-operation on equity standards and burnish our credentials as a leading innovator across international regulatory reforms?
Lord True (Con)
I fear I was not able to catch all the matters to which the noble Lord referred. While I do not favour opportunism, I agree that there is great opportunity out there, which flows from the kind of innovation that he describes. Britain certainly intends to be a world leader.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, given the recent Supreme Court decision in the Uber case, does the Minister agree that it is time to unscramble the unnecessary and divisive distinctions still made in statute between workers and employees, and to remove the taxation differences that affect both groups?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I note the noble Lord’s comments and will obviously refer them to the Ministers responsible.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, in the terms of reference to which the Minister referred, the aim of TIGRR is to “reduce administrative barriers”. Since January, hundreds of thousands of businesses have started to encounter extreme administrative barriers doing things that had previously been seamless. Because of their poor negotiating, the Government have left these businesses—from fishing to cosmetics, advanced manufacturing and food—with miles of new red tape. Does he agree that it is a bit absurd to set up this task force when they have dumped literally container-loads of red tape on British business?
Lord True (Con)
Absolutely not, my Lords. Again, the noble Lord does not show the respect due for the decision of the British people to leave the European Union. The reality is that this task force is asked to look at reducing barriers in whatever context, and I draw his attention to great steps forward. For example, there is the trade agreement with Japan.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, in response to three questions today, the Minister has said that he cannot answer because it is not his department. He is no novice at the Dispatch Box. Can I gently remind him that at the Dispatch Box he answers on behalf of the Government, not just one government department? My specific question is around the task force that he refers to; none of the questions on it should be a surprise to him at all. I have read the terms of reference. They are about business, environmental standards and workers’ protection, but the only members of this task force are three Conservative MPs. Does he think it has any credibility when there are no representatives of employers or employees on the task force? Would it not have been better set up as a Conservative Party task force, to report to the leader of the Conservative Party, rather than being able to get Civil Service support when it is clearly just a Conservative Party body?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I disagree. As to the first part, of course I acknowledge that I answer on behalf of government, but the competence of a Minister to answer on specific questions outside his departmental responsibility is not always the same as that of the Minister responsible. I refer comments on, as I said in another answer. Concerning the second part of the noble Baroness’s question, it is entirely reasonable for any Prime Minister to seek blue-sky thinking, and ideas outside and in parallel to the Government. Mr Blair, for example, did exactly that when calling in the noble Lord, Lord Birt.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, will my noble friend confirm whether the remit covers the plight of part-time working women, particularly those who work, for example, in supermarkets on zero-hour contracts and who have no rights to paid holidays, sick pay or pensions? What is the value of what would be a worthwhile exercise in having the task force if the results are not to be published?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I did not say that the results were not going to be published, but that it would be a matter for the Prime Minister whether they will be. That will happen after the report is presented, at the end of April. On the specific issues concerned, as I have said before, I will draw my noble friend’s points to the attention to those responsible. I am sure that within the terms of reference it would be open to them to look at some of the issues she describes.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB) [V]
On 31 January, Sir Iain Duncan Smith wrote in the Daily Telegraph that
“Despite what the naysayers have said, their worst predictions have not come to pass—goods continue to flow”.
In fact, the ONS reports that exports to the EU were down 40% in January, in part due to the increased regulation brought about by Brexit. Does the Minister believe that Sir Iain Duncan Smith will bring a suitably realistic approach to chairing the task force, rather than the sort of blue-sky thinking in that Telegraph article?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, my right honourable friend Sir Iain Duncan Smith has an extraordinarily distinguished record in government in working on behalf of underprivileged people and the poor. I am sure that he will bring a very open mind to this task.
Baroness Clark of Kilwinning (Lab) [V]
I declare an interest in that I am a member of the GMB trade union, which has spent the last five years fighting legal battles on behalf of Uber drivers. The Supreme Court ruled last month that Uber drivers were indeed workers, which means that they are entitled to holiday pay, the minimum wage and all the other benefits of being classified as workers. Does the Minister welcome the Supreme Court’s decision and undertake that the Government will bring forward emergency legislation to clarify the position of gig economy workers and address the problem of bogus self-employment?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, again, that goes beyond my specific remit but I will draw my colleagues’ attention to what the noble Baroness says. Of course the Government consider with respect any judgment made in the courts. I assure her that among those organisations which I understand the task force has reached out to are trade unions.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Sheikha Latifa bint Mohammed al-Maktoum
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the United Nations about the reported detention of Sheikha Latifa bint Mohammed al-Maktoum of the United Arab Emirates.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the UK has no direct involvement in this case, but we are aware of the allegations surrounding Sheikha Latifa bint Mohammed al-Maktoum. The Office of the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights has asked the UAE for further information and for proof of life. We have not had discussions with the UN regarding this, but we are supportive of the Office of the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights and will continue to follow developments closely.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, following the public statement last month from the Foreign Secretary that he was looking for proof that Princess Latifa was still alive, could the Minister indicate what evidence the Foreign Secretary has now received in relation to this matter? Have concerns been expressed to the United Arab Emirates over its questionable human rights record and, if so, has there been any particular outcome?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, as my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have said, this is a concerning case. The Office of the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights has asked for proof of life from the UAE mission in Geneva. We understand that the UN is yet to receive a reply, but we will continue to monitor developments closely. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said, we would welcome confirmation that Sheikha Latifa is alive and well.
Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]
My Lords, is my noble friend familiar with the account that was provided last month by Sheikha Latifa about the conduct of Indian armed forces in her capture and forced return to Dubai, including the use of tranquillizers and India’s failure to consider her claim for political asylum? What representations have been made to India about its lack of transparency or adherence to international conventions and protocols in its treatment of refugees and asylum seekers?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We are aware of the allegations made by Sheikha Latifa to which my noble friend refers. If an incident involved a UK-flagged vessel, it would fall under the UK’s jurisdiction under international law. However, this alleged incident did not involve any UK-registered vessels or British nationals, so the UK does not have a direct involvement in this case.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
Why has the ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed, not been prosecuted for kidnapping his daughter Princess Shamsa from UK jurisdiction in Cambridge and for continuing to hold hostage his other daughter, Princess Latifa? Are the Government turning a blind eye to the many cases of flagrant abuse of women in Dubai because Sheikh Mohammed is a close friend and ally of Britain with property here?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord refers to the case of Sheikha Shamsa. Criminal matters are a matter for the police. An investigation was conducted by Cambridgeshire Constabulary, which is of courses operationally independent, and the Government had no role in that investigation or its outcome. The UK believes that all states, including the UAE, need to uphold international human rights obligations. We have a close relationship with the UAE, which means that we can raise issues where needed.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, the Integrated Review says that we will
“shape the international order of the future”
and that global Britain is showing
“a renewed commitment to the UK as a force for good in the world”.
Does that include defending the rights of women and girls in the UAE? The Minister appears to be saying that we have not raised this case with the Government of the UAE.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the Integrated Review indeed sets out, as does my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary’s speech today in Aspen, how we want the UK to be a force for good in the world, defending democracy and human rights. In this case, we are raising the matter through the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights and we continue to follow developments closely.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hain mentioned the wider abuse of women in the UAE. I draw particular attention to its labour law, which excludes from its protection domestic workers, who have faced a range of abuses, including unpaid wages, confinement to house, work days of up to 21 hours and physical and sexual assault. What are the Government doing to address this issue and raise with the authorities the need to protect domestic workers?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, one of the pillars of the Integrated Review is our vision for the UK as a force for good in the world, defending democracy and human rights, including championing gender equality. Of course, our world-leading Domestic Abuse Bill sets an international example and will be further considered on Report in your Lordships’ House today.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, this is indeed an unfortunate matter. The UAE is a friendly and close ally of this country and it is well worth expending some capital to keep it that way. I have been impressed by its green policy plans moving forward and hope that the UK can work closely with it and assist in that regard. Can the Minister assure noble Lords that every diplomatic effort is being made satisfactorily to resolve this matter, taking account of course of the cultural differences that no doubt exist between the two states?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We have a close relationship with the UAE, which means that we can raise issues directly with it. The noble Lord is right to refer to the work that it is doing on the environment. The Prime Minister met Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, in December, and they agreed to strengthen our ties across a range of areas, including green technology, infrastructure and defence.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, last year the judgment in the UK family court case brought by the sixth and youngest wife of Sheikh Mohammed was that, on the balance of probabilities, the Sheikh had conducted a campaign of fear and intimidation against Princess Haya and had ordered the abduction of his daughters Princesses Shamsa and Latifa. What representations have our Government made to the ruler of Dubai that he will make no attempt to remove his former wife and their children from the UK against their will?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The civil court proceeding to which the noble Baroness refers is a private matter between two individuals and the UK Government have no involvement in it.
Lord Birt (CB) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, referred to reports that Sheikha Latifa was abducted in international waters with the help of Indian special forces. If that is the case, would such action be lawful and has the Foreign Office raised the matter with the Indian Government?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, as that alleged incident did not involve any UK-registered vessels or British nationals, it does not fall under the UK’s jurisdiction under international law. Accordingly, we have not raised it with the Government of India.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, building on the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, I refer to the 80% of the UAE population who are low-paid migrant workers. What representations have been made on the fate of what seem to be at least hundreds of women a year, including rape victims, who are prosecuted and jailed under the laws against extra-marital sex? What representations have been made on the impact of those laws not only on migrant workers, but also on women across the UAE population generally?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we have a close relation with UAE and we are therefore able to raise matters directly with it. The Integrated Review, to which I have referred, sets out the UK’s policy and stance to make us a force for good in the world.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now move to the next Question.
Police: Sarah Everard Vigils
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harris of Haringey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they had with police chiefs about vigils on 13 March in memory of Sarah Everard prior to those vigils taking place.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my interest in the register and beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con) [V]
My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has said, she met Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick last Friday and over the weekend to discuss the vigil. Her view that the images from Saturday are upsetting is a matter of public record and she has asked for an independent review into the matter.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab) [V]
Ministers have made it clear for months that there should be a tougher approach to Black Lives Matter, climate emergency and anti-lockdown demonstration, and all that is reflected in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Operational independence does not preclude Ministers, PCCs or mayors from providing advice to police leaders on how their actions will be seen and on the community effect of operational decisions. That is what political oversight is all about, so what advice did the Home Secretary offer on this occasion? When she and the commissioner spoke by telephone while the ugly scenes on Clapham Common were taking place, what did they talk about—the weather?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will quote directly from the Home Secretary, who said:
“It is right that I have had many discussions with the Metropolitan police and specifically the commissioner on Friday and over the weekend in relation to preparations and planning prior to Saturday evening. My comments are public and on the record regarding what has happened and, quite frankly, the upsetting images of Saturday evening. A review is now being conducted by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary. It is right that that takes place.”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/3/21; col 29.]
The noble Lord talks about operational independence. It is absolutely right that the police have operational independence, but it is also absolutely right that, first, the Government make the law and, secondly, that conversations take place between the Executive and some of the agencies of government.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as the day wears on, many protests give rise to excesses all round. My family tells me that, this Sunday afternoon, the police were courteous but firm. Was it the Government’s purpose in their regulations to ban all protests? If so, will they now regulate to preserve the right of protest, so that both police and the public are able to return to normality?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
My Lords, noble Lords will recognise that banning protests was not at the heart of what the Government did; banning protests was part of keeping the public safe in this global pandemic—keeping down the numbers of people who get infected and therefore keeping people out of hospital.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, last week, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services published a report that found that,
“when forces do not accurately assess the level of disruption caused, or likely to be caused, by a protest, the balance may tip too readily in favour of protesters.”
The author, Matt Parr, a former Royal Navy officer, is currently suing the Home Office, claiming that he is being paid less than a colleague because he is a white man. Politically, do the Government believe that the rear-admiral is the best person, and HMICFRS the best organisation, to be conducting the so-called independent review into the protests by women on Clapham Common, in the light of its recent report and the tribunal action?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
On the noble Lord’s former point, this is obviously an equal pay matter and that process will take its path. I think that HMICFRS is the right organisation to investigate, because it is the body that we would appoint to do such work.
Lord Wasserman (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister and her ministerial colleagues in the Home Office on giving police and crime commissioners their unequivocal support for the internal review of PCCs, the findings of which were announced earlier this week. I express my hope that the electorate across England and Wales will be encouraged by this review to turn out and vote on 6 May for their local PCC. Given that it now appears that PCCs will be with us for some time, does the Minister agree that PCCs should make it a priority to develop close working relationships with their chief constables so that the operational decisions of their chiefs on matters such as the policing of vigils and other major events are publicly supported by the local PCC on the basis that they had been fully consulted about them beforehand?
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
Before the Minister responds, could I ask noble Lords to please keep their questions brief?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his kind words, and of course PCCs have our full support. It is absolutely crucial that the various agencies communicate with each other when such events are to take place and that PCCs are fully keyed into those events. For the most part, the events held over the weekend went very peacefully.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, vigils were held outside London, including one in Victoria Square in Birmingham. More than 100 people attended and the West Midlands Police responded in a peaceful way. It reinforced its commitment to policing through explanation, engagement, encouragement and using force only as a last resort. When it comes to this kind of operational decision, could I urge the Minister that we should learn the lessons of more peaceful demonstrations and find out why things so clearly went wrong at Clapham Common last Saturday?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
I thank the noble Baroness for that question because it segues quite nicely from the points that I have just made. Yes, most of the events and vigils went peacefully with people socially distancing and the police having no problems at all. I think that the review by Sir Tom Winsor will give us a greater insight into why some things went wrong on Saturday at one particular event.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
On Monday, the Home Secretary told the Commons that the Metropolitan Police Service was “rightly operationally independent.” Given that, what was the purpose of the extensive discussions held by the Home Secretary with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner throughout the weekend on police planning and preparation for the vigil? Was the purpose that the Home Secretary wanted to make sure that the Metropolitan Police would not do anything with which she did not agree?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is absolutely right that the commissioner of the largest police force in the country should keep the Home Secretary up to date, and I know that she speaks with her regularly. That is not so the Home Secretary can dictate what the Metropolitan Police does, but it is very important that the two keep in communication.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, is it not now the policy of the police, as in my experience it used to be, to meet the organisers of demos or protests to agree how peaceful protest can legitimately take place?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
My Lords, in ordinary circumstances and indeed even under Covid restrictions, that would be the case. Clearly, what went wrong on Saturday will be a matter for the review by Sir Tom Winsor.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, in wishing my noble friend a speedy return from isolation, could I ask her how many demonstrations took place around the country, how many arrests were made outside London, and whether lessons can please be drawn from this in the future?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend the exact number, but this review will give us a good idea of what lessons can be learned in what are of course very unusual times.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Mozambique: Militant Violence
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Oates
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the increase of militant violence in the Cabo Delgado province of Mozambique.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con) [V]
My Lords, the UK is deeply concerned by the deteriorating security situation in north-east Mozambique due to increasing attacks by groups with links to Islamic extremism. To date, the insurgency has claimed more than 2,000 lives and has displaced more than 670,000 people. The UK is supporting the Government of Mozambique to address the drivers of insecurity and has provided £90 million of humanitarian support to help those displaced by the conflict.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, given the obvious parallels with the long-standing violence in the Niger Delta associated with oil and gas production, what assessment have the Government made of the possible interrelationship between the discovery and exploitation of gas off Cabo Delgado and the subsequent explosion of extremist violence?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, we have worked closely with the Government of Mozambique to encourage a response to the insurgency that addresses its root causes. This includes ensuring that local populations in Cabo Delgado province can share in any economic benefits of development in the province.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the World Food Programme has long warned that the violence is worsening food insecurity. The country representative said last week that it was important to join efforts now to protect food and nutrition security, as the livelihoods of the Mozambiquans have been impacted not only by the armed conflict but by Cyclone Kenneth and, of course, Covid. What steps is the United Kingdom taking to promote food and nutrition programmes in Mozambique?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
The UK provides significant ODA to Mozambique, worth £179 million in 2019-20. This supports work in a number of different sectors, including health, education, water, sanitation, better governance and inclusive economic development. Revised allocations for next year will be published by the Treasury soon, but the ODA support that we provide to Mozambique is all about helping it to achieve sustainability across all sectors.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, Mozambique has a terrible history of conflict, but had pulled itself out of that. We played our part in that. The Integrated Review says that we will work together with others in Africa to build
“resilient and productive economies and open societies”.
Will the Minister guarantee that, in this circumstance, the FCDO will maintain the level of support? If not, how much aid will it cut from Mozambique?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, we are committed to supporting the Government and people of Mozambique to address, among other things, the conflict’s root causes. We do not see this as a purely military problem or an external problem. It is about marginalisation, poverty and the prospect of the arrival of massive gas income, which people worry they might not see. That concern has no doubt been exploited by Islamists. We are committed to continuing our work in Mozambique, tackling those root causes. I am not able to provide any figures yet in relation to the subsequent ODA allocations, but an answer will be forthcoming shortly.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, the Minister is precisely right that this is as much an economic problem as an aid problem, but the two are linked. Will he accept that an absolute and a relative reduction in our overseas aid budget will have a direct effect on our failure to deter insurgents from recruiting young, unemployed men in this province? That will have a direct, strategic impact on the political and economic stability of this Commonwealth country.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, as I said, the UK is working with the Mozambique Government to develop a coherent strategy on the conflict. That means addressing the root causes of conflict and extremism, creating economic opportunities and jobs for young people in Cabo Delgado and building community resilience to recruitment by extremist groups. On the broader issue of cuts to ODA, the UK economy is undergoing the worst contraction for three decades. Against that backdrop, we have had to make some hard choices, including temporarily reducing the ODA target from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI. Despite that, we remain a world-leading donor and will spend more than £10 billion of ODA this year. We will return to 0.7% when the fiscal situation allows.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, beyond the desperate situation internally in Mozambique, if insufficiently accountable leadership, social injustice and income disparities, compounded by isolated villages, are root causes of a problem that will likely increasingly threaten stability across the continent, what advice can be given or action taken to counter the resulting network of terror groups, which cross-reference on attrition, intimidation and provocation with the ultimate goal of forming multiple caliphates?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
The noble Viscount makes an extremely important point. We understand—and our response reflects the understanding—that this problem in Mozambique is not a localised one, an external one or a military one; it has its roots in much broader concerns. Our support for Mozambique reflects that. The same is true, as the noble Viscount said, across the continent. That is why, as we develop the next round of programmes and a pipeline of projects through our ODA spending, we will focus increasingly on issues that pose long-term threats to stability in countries right across the continent, not least climate change and environmental degradation. This is very much at the heart of the approach that we are taking.
Lord Chidgey (LD) [V]
My Lords, the atrocities in Cabo Delgado are unforgettable, but so should be the underlying factors stoking the insurgency. Reference has been made to unemployment among the young, which means that many have joined the Islamic rebels with their promises to replace corrupt, elitist rule. Last year, a loan agreement including $1 billion from the UK was signed to fund a gigantic gas project, creating tens of thousands of jobs offshore, with hardly any—just 2,500—in Mozambique. Will the Government ensure that their export finance policies place emphasis on socioeconomic job creation as part of, to quote the Foreign Secretary,
“the road map … guided by our moral compass”?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
On the project that the noble Lord refers to, UK Export Finance committed up to $1.15 billion to support the liquefied natural gas project in Mozambique. The project is designed to help Mozambique transition away from dirtier forms of fuel, such as coal, as well as to alleviate poverty. Since that decision was made by UKEF, the Prime Minister announced at the Climate Ambition Summit in December last year that the Government will end any new export support and overseas development assistance to overseas projects involving fossil fuels. We recognise that there is, without a doubt, a gas component—in particular the profits that will arise from this gas project—which is at least part of the problem that has erupted in the region.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, is not this an all-too-familiar cocktail of exploitation of rich natural resources, corruption, poverty, terrorism and, as we have been told in this case, barbarism? Will not the Government of Mozambique’s position inevitably be diminished if there is any cut in the aid that this country has previously offered to them?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am afraid that I am not able to shed any light on future programming, although I hope that I or my colleagues will be able to do so very soon. I have no doubt about the value of our ODA spending in the region and I believe that by sharpening our focus on some of the longer-term threats faced by the region—not least climate change, environmental degradation and exploitation of the rich resources that many countries have—we will have much better, bigger and more refined impacts than we have had in the past.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, to understand what is really happening on the ground in Cabo Delgado, we need the public scrutiny of military operations and alleged abuses that comes with unobstructed media freedom. What action have our Government taken on reports from UNOCHA and Human Rights Watch of documented incidents of the Mozambiquan security forces intimidating, detaining and prosecuting journalists? Can the Minister also say whether the BBC has full access to the conflict areas in Cabo Delgado?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, we are of course deeply concerned by numerous reports that we have received more recently and the horrific videos released in September showing alleged human rights abuses by the Mozambiquan security forces—really appalling scenes. We have urged the authorities to ensure that there is a full investigation to identify the perpetrators and to bring them to justice. The Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Africa have both publicly condemned the vicious attacks and will continue to raise this issue at every opportunity.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume, and I ask Members to respect social distancing.
I will call Members to speak on the consideration of Commons reasons on the Fire Safety Bill, as there are counterpropositions to two of the Motions and everything is to be taken in one group. Any Member in the Chamber may speak on this group, subject to the usual seating arrangements and the capacity of the Chamber. Any intending to do so should email the clerk or indicate when asked. Members who are not intending to speak should make room for Members who are, and all speakers will be called by the Chair. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are discouraged and any Member wishing to ask such a question must email the clerk.
The groupings are binding. A participant who might wish to press an amendment other than the lead amendment to a Division must give notice in the debate or by emailing the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw Motions and, when putting the question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice to be accounted for if the Question is put, they must make this clear when speaking to the group. Noble Lords who are following the proceedings remotely but not speaking may submit their voice, content or not-content, to the collection of the voices by emailing the clerk during the debate. Members cannot vote by email; the way to vote will be via the remote voting system.
Fire Safety Bill
Wednesday 17th March 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 View all Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 173-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons reasons - (15 Mar 2021)
15:00 - Division conducted remotely on Motion C1 - Ayes: 326 / Noes: 248 - Motion C1 agreed.
Lord Greenhalgh
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, I will speak also to the House’s Amendments 3 and 4, with which the other place has disagreed for its Commons Reasons 3A and 4A. Before I address the amendments agreed at the Lords Report stage, I would like to make a few comments about the overall importance of this piece of legislation. The Bill was introduced in the other place nearly a year ago today and we are moving closer to getting it on to the statute book. As there are a couple of issues to resolve, it is vital that we should remind ourselves of the fundamental purpose of the Bill. It is an important step in delivering fire and building legislative reforms. It is purposely short because it has been designed to provide much-needed legal clarification that the fire safety order applies to structure, external walls and flat entrance doors. What this will mean on the ground is that these critical elements will be covered in updated fire risk assessments and ensure that enforcement authorities can take action where necessary. In short, the current legal uncertainty will end.
I turn to Amendment 2 and Amendment 2B proposed in lieu by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. The Government remain steadfast in their commitment to delivering the Grenfell Tower inquiry recommendations, including those on the duties of an owner or manager. As such, the amendments are unnecessary. However, I thank him for his constructive engagement with me prior to this debate. I will be able to provide further reassurances to the House in respect of timing that he is seeking and look forward to outlining them in response to the debate.
I turn now to Amendment 3. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for the constructive conversations that we have had regarding a public register of fire risk assessments, and I am grateful to her for not pressing her amendment again today.
I move on to Amendment 4, Amendments 4B, 4C, 4D and 4E proposed in lieu by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, and Amendment 4F proposed in lieu by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I recognise the concerns of your Lordships to ensure that swift action is taken to protect leaseholders from the significant remediation costs related to unsafe cladding and other historic building safety defects. We are all acutely aware of the full toll that this has taken on leaseholders and the pain and anguish that it has caused. I expect that we will hear a number of views during the debate on the important issue of remediation. However, this is a highly complex matter without a simple solution, and it cannot be resolved in this short Bill.
I make it clear now that we have a number of concerns about the alternative amendments, and I will set out my specific views on them at the end of the debate. I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
At end insert “and do propose Amendment 2B in lieu—
“Legislative proposals relating to duties of owner or manager
(1) Within 90 days of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish draft legislation to require an owner or a manager of any building which contains two or more sets of domestic premises to—
(a) share information with their local Fire and Rescue Service in respect of each building for which an owner or manager is responsible about the design of its external walls and details of the materials of which those external walls are constructed,
(b) in respect of any building for which an owner or manager is responsible which contains separate flats, undertake annual inspections of individual flat entrance doors,
(c) in respect of any building for which an owner or manager is responsible which contains separate flats, undertake monthly inspections of lifts and report the results to their local Fire and Rescue Service if the results include a fault, and
(d) share evacuation and fire safety instructions with residents of the building.
(2) Within 90 days of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a statement on a proposed timetable for the passage of the draft legislation mentioned in subsection (1).
(3) Within 120 days of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a statement confirming whether the draft legislation mentioned in subsection (1) has progressed.””
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, the chair of the Heart of Medway Housing Association and a non-executive director of MHS Homes Ltd. In moving Motion A1, I will address all the Motions before the House today.
It is disappointing that the Government have over- turned the amendment passed by this House. The intent of our amendment was to make progress in implementing the recommendations made in the first phase of the Grenfell Tower inquiry. Our frustration, along with the frustration felt by many, has been that since the recommendations made in the first phase were published, progress has been extremely and annoyingly slow. Being told by the Government that in most cases we do not need legislation to make progress is in some ways even more frustrating because nothing has happened, which is again very odd. This is the first piece of legislation we have seen that will bring anything into force. Frankly, the victims and their families deserve better. People living in properties that are unsafe or blighted deserve better than that.
This led me to propose Motion A1, which proposes to insert a new clause into the Bill. What my amendment seeks to do is accept the Government intention to take action but to add some rigour and rigidity to the proposals with clear timescales for action. As I have said previously, this has all been too slow with no clarity about what the timescales are for action through primary legislation and through secondary legislation and guidance.
This morning I received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, which seeks to add some clarity to the timescales for action, and that is welcome. We also have the Government’s response to the consultation, which is helpful. It looks as if we are finally making some progress and I welcome that. It would be good to hear him, when he responds to the debate, set out the timescales for the actions the Government are proposing, and I look forward to that. That will be part of the official record of the House and the Government will be held accountable for the pledges that they make today.
In respect of Motion B, while I accept that the Commons can assert financial privilege and the need not to give any other reason, we must consider the subject of the amendment that was rejected and the circumstances that have led to this Bill, as well as the intention behind the amendment that the other place has rejected. We would have hoped to have got a little more than the assertion of financial privilege. This is about fire safety and reassurance for residents that the register is up to date, that it can be relied on and that it is publicly available and transparent so that sunlight on fire risk assessments will provide more reassurance. I hope that when the noble Lord responds to Motion A, he will provide a bit more clarity than just relying on financial privilege as expressed by the other place.
Motion C1, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, seeks to add to the Bill Amendments 4B, 4C, 4D and 4E. They would prohibit the owner of a building from passing on the costs of annual remedial works attributable to the requirements of the Act to leaseholders or tenants, except where the leaseholder is also the owner of the building. The amendments under the Motion tabled by the right reverend Prelate have my full support, and the Labour Benches will support him if he decides to divide the House. I hope very much that he will do so.
Leaseholders are victims and have done nothing wrong. They deserve to be treated much better than they have been by the Government. They have done everything right. They have bought their properties and are paying their mortgages. Now they are being penalised for the failure of others. Surely that cannot be right. The fact that their buildings have been covered in dangerous cladding has made their flats worthless. They cannot sell their properties, but they are still expected to pay their mortgages and other charges. They cannot get work done; they may be paying for a waking watch and in some cases the properties will have guarantees on them which need to be drawn down. There will be warranties for work done which need to be used. They have been paid for, otherwise they are literally not worth the paper they are written on.
We should all stand up to support leaseholders and tenants and get those who have done the work to accept their responsibility and put this right. The Government are failing leaseholders and tenants. Their actions are just not good enough and fall far short of what they promised.
I want to be clear. For the individual builder, contractor, company, warranty provider or insurance company, it cannot be right for people to wriggle out of their responsibilities. The Government need to take firm action. Supporting the Motions and amendments before the House today will be an opportunity to ask the Government to think again, and I hope we take it. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I speak to Motion C1 and Amendments 4B to 4E. I give notice of my intention to seek the opinion of the House when the time comes. I declare my interest in the register in that I, too, am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I first thank the honourable Members for Stevenage and for Southampton, Itchen, who originally prepared these amendments, as well as the signatories from all parties when they were tabled in the Commons. I also thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, who joins me in supporting it, and pay tribute to one of our colleagues, the Bishop of Kensington, who has worked very closely on the ground with victims of Grenfell and leaseholders.
Grenfell was an unmitigated tragedy brought about, it would seem, by institutional failings on multiple levels. The recent revelation that the cladding provider knew that it could result in tragedy and death is nothing short of a disgrace. It has been a tragedy for many lives: ordinary families have been ripped apart by this terrible event.
The Bill will deal with the problem of dangerous cladding by creating a quick and easy mechanism to force freeholders to remove dangerous cladding and other fire safety defects. That is undoubtedly a good thing and will, hopefully, protect against future tragedies, but I share the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, that Her Majesty’s Government have not sought to address the severe adverse financial consequences that the Bill will create for leaseholders. In the Bill’s current form, whenever the fire service serves notice to the freeholder requiring remedial work to be undertaken, the freeholder will be able to force leaseholders to reimburse all the costs incurred. These costs are staggering.
At this point, I say that our hearts go out—I am sure we all share this—to all the people who are struggling. I have been inundated with emails, tweets and people contacting me who are at their wit’s end looking at what is likely to unfold in the next few weeks. Far from the Government’s estimated remedial costs of around £9,000 per leaseholder, depending on the terms of the lease and the work involved, a leaseholder could very easily be handed a bill of £50,000, payable within weeks.
Inside Housing conducted its own private survey of 1,342 leaseholders. Its findings reveal a very different picture to that of Her Majesty’s Government. Among those surveyed, 63% of respondents faced a total bill above £30,000 for remedial costs and 15% faced a bill of more than £100,000. Of course, a few of these lease- holders may be well off, some will have disposable income, but most will not: 60% had a household income of less than £50,000, with only 8.7% reporting a household income of more than £100,000. In other words, this will primarily affect ordinary middle to working-class people.
In addition, 56.4% of those surveyed were first-time buyers. They have followed that life trajectory that many Conservative Governments have sought to promote by working hard, saving and purchasing a property. These are people with aspirations—something I totally support—yet nearly everything they have worked hard towards, over many years, could be taken away from them, as shown by the alarming 17.2% of respondents who say that they are already exploring bankruptcy options. I must remind the House that the costs mentioned above include only the remedial costs; they say nothing about the interim fire safety costs that leaseholders already incur.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to speak to but not, at this point, to move Motion C2.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a member of Kirklees Council.
Much has happened since the Bill was last debated in this House in November. It is already clear from the contributions to this debate today that this is an unresolved crisis of major proportions. I thank the Minister for the opportunities that he has provided to discuss the issues raised. The Government’s response has been to regard this as largely an issue for lease- holders and freeholders to resolve. Gradually, however, they have acceded to the principle that, without government intervention and funding, the problem will not be resolved.
The purpose of all the amendments in my name and that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans is to extend the principle already agreed by the Government. Amendment 4F in my name would extend the contribution that the Government make to cover not just the remediation but the extortionate service charges and higher insurance costs that are currently being levied on these leaseholders. This serious problem can be successfully fixed only with up-front funding from the Government, which can then be recouped from developers, construction firms and manufacturers.
The Government’s own estimate is that the total cost of remediation will be in the region of £16 billion. The buildings involved are not just in London but all across the country. Following the Grenfell tragedy, we now know that ACM cladding was affixed to blocks when it was known to be inflammable. As the cladding is peeled away, further serious building defects are revealed. The Government recognise this, as they have issued a directive to local authorities requiring an inspection of various features, including fire breaks, insulation and spandrel panels, as well as cladding. This is now much more than a cladding scandal; it has become a construction crisis.
Worse still is that some of the defects that are being exposed were in breach of building regulations even at the time of construction. The big question then is: who is going to pay? Currently, the Government are providing grants for the removal of cladding only and are restricting those grants to buildings of 18 metres or more in height. Yet cladding has to be removed from all blocks, irrespective of height. The Government have chosen 18 metres partly because they simply have no idea how many blocks there are that are lower than 18 metres. I have asked the ministry for the analysis of those risks to which the Minister will refer but have received no reply to date. Good decision-making is dependent on well-researched data, which is then shared for all decision-makers.
At the heart of this crisis are people who have done everything right and nothing wrong. They are innocent victims and have suffered enough. Imagine living in a flat with your family, knowing for three years or more that the home you saved hard to buy is a significant fire risk. That fact alone has left emotional scars on those leaseholders. Then imagine, having carefully budgeted, being faced with an additional service charge of several hundreds of pounds each month to cover the extras: waking watch, insurance and more. For some, the final straw is that you are then billed for the costs of total remediation. For individuals faced with these enormous bills, the choices are very limited.
Bankruptcy has already been the solution for too many. George is one such. He describes himself as a frightened leaseholder and says, “I have been informed that it will cost £2 million to replace the cladding and remedy the defects. That is £50,000 per flat. I’ll be bankrupt by the end of the year at the age of 28. The building has one grant, covering 10% of the costs.” Everything that he and others have worked and saved for is lost through no fault of theirs. It can lead to homelessness. Sarah lives in a flat in the Royal Quay in Liverpool. The normal year service charges for that block were £270,000; this year, the service charges are nearly £1 million. Sarah says that the defects are so numerous that the fire service may have to escalate from a compliance to a prohibition notice, which will shut down the complex. If that occurs, 400 residents will be made homeless.
Not surprisingly, given those examples, for some the stress is such that very serious mental illness, or worse, has followed. Hundreds of thousands of individuals and families are watching and waiting for the decision of this House today. They are willing us on to help to find a fair and just solution to a problem that is not in any way of their making, yet they are the ones who are being asked to pay the price. If the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans wishes to divide the House, as he has indicated, the Liberal Democrat Benches will support him. If, however, he chooses not to do so, then I will wish to test the opinion of the House.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as a vice-president of the LGA and as a practising chartered surveyor. I have very considerable sympathy with all these amendments but, the matter having now been decided by this House, gone to the other place and now come back, it behoves us to consider all these matters with a degree of objectivity, despite the clear emotions that are involved.
With regard to Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, I agree that it has taken far too long to deal with this matter, which has allowed the issue to grow in a way that should have been nipped in the bud at an earlier stage, but I realise the complexities of the issues, which I will address in a moment. On all these amendments, I must say at this juncture that I do not know which way I would vote; it will become apparent why as I proceed.
It goes without saying that I have the greatest possible respect for the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the powerful case that he makes for Motion C1 and, for that matter, the case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on the allied Motion C2. Indeed, every fibre of my being tells me that a great injustice has been visited on many innocent people as leaseholders and tenants in buildings affected by this Bill who have faced the burdens of past failings, delays and inaction, which they themselves may be powerless to deal with. It must be as if the whole system of property law and ownership has conspired against them. As a property professional, I feel that most acutely. It has been made worse, as I say, by the length of time that these problems have been gestating.
However, whatever my heart tells me on the grounds of ethics and justice, my professional experience tells me that these amendments would, almost inevitably, not achieve their aims or address the present or future fundamental issues. This Bill potentially affects a very wide category of property and tenure, not just high-rise blocks. The provisions of Clause 1 extend the regulations to any property comprising two or more separate units of accommodation. I ask noble Lords to contemplate just what that means in practice.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
The following members present in the Chamber have indicated that they wish to speak: the noble Lord, Lord Newby, the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. I will call them in that order, so the first speaker is the noble Lord, Lord Newby.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest. I am a leaseholder in a block where I stay when I am in London during the week which has been found to have major safety defects and in which a waking watch is now in operation. I have therefore been able to see in my own bills but also by talking to people who live in the block what the consequences of the current situation really are. I strongly support the Motions in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and of my noble friend Lady Pinnock.
This is a scandal of major proportions, and it is a modern one. Most of the buildings we are talking about have been built in recent years. We are not talking about a problem left over from the Victorians or the Edwardians; this is a recent problem of our own times. As we have heard, it is causing great distress, not minor worries, to a large number of people. The scale of the financial consequences of the problems they face affects not just their short-term economic position but every aspect of their lives. The immediate costs in themselves are pretty horrendous for people on modest incomes. In my block, as elsewhere, people in that position are having to take out loans at very high rates of interest to deal even with the ongoing waking watch costs, which are considerable. However, beyond that, people are stuck. They cannot sell their flat or move, even if there were compelling reasons for them to do so. In some cases they feel unable to start a family as they planned, because of the overwhelming financial uncertainties that they face. None of this, as is obviously the case, is their fault at all. The Motion in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans deals with the core of the problem and would remove from them the cloud of the future financial burdens they face. I strongly support it.
For reasons which I fully understand, his Motion does not deal with who should ultimately pay for all this. In my mind, that is pretty straightforward. The principal burden should fall on those who are culpable: the developers. They have made very significant profits over very many years from building substandard accommodation, and they should pay for it. In the case of Barratt Developments, which built the block in which I live, its profits over the past five years alone have been more than £3.5 billion. It can afford to clean up its own mess, and the same applies to other major housebuilders. Exactly how that is done is, I admit, complicated, but this is a challenge for the Government which they have not begun to meet.
During the lockdown, television channels are showing old series because it has been so difficult to make new ones. Last night, I watched an old episode of “Yes Minister”, which I strongly recommend. It is clear that the Minister here watched it as well because he has used exactly the arguments which Sir Humphrey used to persuade his Minister not to take action: “It’s highly complex. I’m really sorry. We’d love to do it but it’s really quite difficult, you know. Even if we could do it, which we can’t, it’s not appropriate to do it in this Bill. If we can do it—and I’m not sure we can—it may be possible to do it in a future Bill. I’m not sure which Bill; I don’t know when it’s going to come. But because it’s very complicated, you wouldn’t expect me to say further.” That is the Minister’s response to this.
In last night’s “Yes Minister”, what happened was that the Minister in it, completely frustrated by these usual arguments, put his foot down by announcing on national television that something was going to be done, which in effect bounced his Permanent Secretary into doing it. I suggest that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, takes a leaf out of that Minister’s book and goes on television this very evening to say that he has been so impressed by the debate he has heard that the Government will now act speedily.
The truth is that the reason we are hanging about has everything to do with a lack of political will, and not to do with the technicalities. It is the job of government to deal with difficult things. Most bits of public policy are tricky and difficult. This is no exception but it does not mean that the Government have no policies on anything. It means that they choose what they want to devote time and effort to, and they have decided they are not prepared to put in the time, effort, commitment and funds to deal with this glaring injustice.
The right reverend Prelate’s Motion is a start because it removes the major part of the cloud facing people currently in difficulty and it should be supported. But even when it has been supported, it does not absolve the Government from grappling with this issue and sorting it out properly.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the National Housing Federation, the representative body for housing associations in England. Our members house 6 million people in 2.6 million homes, including a significant number of flats in multi-storey, multi-occupied buildings that need remedial work on their external wall system.
Nothing is a greater priority for housing associations than their residents’ safety. Following the awful Grenfell tragedy, they have been leading the way in the past three years by identifying buildings that need urgent work and carrying it out as quickly as possible. In his Motion C1, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans wants to protect leaseholders from huge bills to make their homes safe, and I support him. Leaseholders should not be facing such costs. Other noble Lords have given vivid examples of the impact on leaseholders.
Housing associations are doing what they can to ensure their leaseholders do not have to foot the bill for developers’ mistakes by pursuing the companies that built the buildings, as well as warranty and insurance providers. Sadly, these efforts are not always successful so I applaud a move by this House to provide extra assurance to leaseholders living in these homes.
However, housing associations face a huge dilemma. They exist predominantly to provide social homes to those on lower incomes. The buildings that housing associations need to remediate due to safety concerns will largely be made up of social housing. This welcome move to protect leaseholders must also be coupled with further government funding to pay for the necessary remedial works to all the buildings that need them. While the funding that the Government have made available for remediation costs so far is very welcome, the £1 billion building safety fund and the additional £3.5 billion announced last month are not available to remediate homes in which social tenants live.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, I wish to support the Motions in the name of my friends the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, which provide a more comprehensive solution than is already in this Bill.
As the 133rd Bishop of London, it has been my privilege to serve this city for the last three years. Unfortunately, I have seen how inequality of outcome is built into our city. As I have followed this debate, it has moved me to speak today. It is almost four years since the Grenfell Tower disaster. Hundreds of thousands of citizens in London and other cities across this country still lie awake at night wondering whether their homes are safe and they can weather the financial hardship of the life-changing remediation bills that they face.
This is having a major impact on the health and well-being of our communities, the communities in this city. My work on the ground with the Bishop of Kensington has meant that I engage with people who are bearing the real cost of this: costs not just financially but to their health and mental well-being, with some facing suicidal thoughts. While they may bear the cost today, they will also do so in the future and there is no doubt that the NHS will bear the cost in the years to come.
We have heard from the Government and substantial sums of money have been cited, but I fear that they do not really go far enough. The amendments of my right reverend friend the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, exist because each month, people edge closer to bankruptcy and struggle to sell their properties with debts attached from the exorbitant remediation and interim fire safety costs. Due to these financial pressures, some will pay almost 60% of their annual salary on those costs.
The Government’s current approach of a levy on developers has some weaknesses. If the scope of the levy was extended to cover other responsible parties, such as major contractors and suppliers of defective products, greater sums could be raised. The amendments attempt to distribute responsibility fairly, because it is a shared responsibility of the developers’ community, testing and regulatory guidance communities and major contractors to ensure that those who bought their homes in good faith and understood them to be safe, be they high or low-rise, do not face the burden of cost to refit their properties and make them safe. It is our responsibility as representatives of your Lordships’ House to make sure that we do right by the people of this country, even if it is complex. That is the role of government.
The Church of England is quite clear. In a recently published Archbishops’ housing commission report, we recommended that the Government should cover remediation costs and recoup their initial outlays from those responsible. We are looking to the Government to develop a simple, fair and comprehensive solution to the current crisis, but this solution must be clear and cost-effective. It also must be quick. Any solution should be based on “polluter pays” principles, with those responsible for unsafe buildings being required to put them right.
I therefore press the Minister, first, for assurances that the Government will implement a comprehensive solution, to ensure that leaseholders living in blocks more than 18 metres high and blocks between 11 and 18 metres do not pay for any remediation or interim fire safety costs through the building safety Bill, and that they will be compensated for their losses so far. Secondly, I press him to improve the Government’s current approach, which consists of a levy on developers, and distribute the responsibility for these costs as far as possible to all those responsible for the current crisis, and so protect leaseholders and taxpayers. Finally, I press him to create a legacy for the future of buildings and houses that are fit for purpose for those in our community and in a UK post Covid.
If these commitments cannot be given today, will the Minister meet me and representatives of the Archbishops’ housing commission to discuss how we can take forward these solutions in the coming building safety Bill? I support the amendments in the names of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, the most important work this House does is to legislate and, within that work, to assert its view and opinion against the Government and the other House, because that is where we are acting independently, as opposed to acting simply either as a rubber stamp or a deliberative assembly. It always amazes me how little time and attention we spend on our most important function. Many noble Lords are in Committee until 11 pm or midnight, day after day. We discuss amendments a first time, refine them for Report the second time and may come round to them again at Third Reading.
However, when it comes to the most controversial issues in a Bill, which, by definition, are those which we send to the other place, we are expected to hurry them all through. Very inadequate notice is given of matters coming back to this House. There are no proper structured arrangements for discussion, in the way that there are for the ordinary consideration of legislation. We are faced with reasons on hugely weighty issues from the House of Commons as to why it will not accept our view, which usually consist of one or two lines of the utmost banality: statements like “Because the Government has announced it intends to bring forward its own legislative proposals”, full stop.
That is supposed to be a reason why we should set aside all the hours of deliberation by this House, as well as its votes, and simply accept a government assurance. We are always put under great time pressure, and then the Salisbury convention is brought in telling us why this House, having spent hours—and having had many votes—on these issues, should not even spend the proper time and consideration required, including using our undoubted powers to continue to ask the House of Commons to consider these matters again.
Other legislatures with two Chambers deal with these matters much better. They have arrangements for joint sittings on issues that are contested between the Houses, which I believe that we should have. Our arrangements are due only to historical reasons dating from the Middle Ages. One of the right reverend Prelate’s 133 predecessors probably devised these arrangements in the 13th century, even before “Yes Minister”. They are absolutely not fit for purpose in the 21st century. We inhabit the same building; we have electronic means of communication; we can consider these matters better. By definition, when we come to this stage of a Bill, these are always weighty and substantial matters. We would otherwise not be engaging, for the second or third time, in a conflict with the House of Commons.
These are hugely important issues. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said that we needed to be objective rather than emotional. But the objective thing to be on this issue is emotional because we are dealing with people who face, as the two right reverend Prelates and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, potential bills of £40,000, £50,000 or £60,000 apiece. This will drive them into bankruptcy and cause them huge mental anguish. In some cases—let us be frank; we have all heard of such stories—it can lead to suicide, since these are absolutely catastrophic impacts on individuals. We, as legislators, have a duty to take account of that and reach the best possible arrangement. I stress that we should not be railroaded on issues of this kind into either having to cave in or taking quick decisions before there has been proper consideration.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London referred just now to the Archbishops’ Council. I know that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has been leading work on this issue, with a number of extremely distinguished experts on housing, and would like to meet the Minister. The very least that the Minister should say in response to her, assuming that this amendment goes back, is that before it comes to this House again he and the Secretary of State will meet the right reverend Prelate, the most reverend Primate and their advisers—who I happen to know include a former Permanent Secretary and other very senior and expert people—to discuss these issues. These are matters of huge anguish and importance.
It is very important that we play fair by people who, as everyone has accepted, are not facing big charges which were expected. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said that in respect of property one has duties, responsibilities and risks, but these are not normal risks. People should be expected to bear normal and reasonably foreseeable risks but these were completely abnormal, of a scale they could not have been expected to foresee or budget for.
Their other consequences have not even been mentioned in the debate so far. This is leading to a substantial seizure of the entire property market at the moment. Large numbers of people with leasehold properties simply cannot sell them at the moment. Until these risks are properly quantified, and the allocation of the burdens is properly determined, people cannot sell. It is a huge problem in the property market, and this will continue until it is done.
When the Minister, for whom we have great respect and who knows these matters at first hand, as the former leader of a local authority with large numbers of leaseholders, said that the Government were seeking to crunch through these matters bit by bit and deal with them, that goes straight back to “Yes Minister”. The Grenfell Tower fire was on 14 June 2017. That is, by my calculation, three years and nine months ago. We are not exactly rushing with indecent haste to deal with these issues. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that the Government should do their job, which is to safeguard the community on matters of huge public importance, including putting schemes in place. It took 20 years to build the great wall of China, and we are saying that after four years, the Government still do not have a proper scheme in place to deal with these issues.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, is there anyone present in the Chamber, who has been here since the beginning of the debate, who wishes to contribute? No? In which case, I revert to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the debate and will take this opportunity to address noble Lords’ comments and concerns in more detail. I start by addressing Amendment 2B. I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for his constructive engagement with me on this. I reiterate again that the Government remain steadfast in their commitment to deliver the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 1 report’s recommendations in full. It is understandable that the House wants to see visible progress on this and to have a better understanding of the timing of next steps and of the proposals that we will bring forward.
Today, the Government published their response to the fire safety consultation. This is an important and clear demonstration of our progression towards implementing the inquiry’s recommendations. I am clear that, subject to the Fire Safety Bill gaining Royal Assent, the Government intend to lay regulations before the second anniversary of the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 1 report that will deliver on the inquiry’s recommendations. These will include measures around checking fire doors and lifts.
I am also committed to seeking further views, as soon as practicable, through a further public consultation on the complex issue of personal emergency evacuation plans. We already know that some of our proposals from the consultation will require primary legislation. They include strengthening the guidance relating to the discharge of duties under the fire safety order and the requirement for responsible persons in all regulated premises to record who they are and provide a UK-based address. We intend to include these measures, and possibly others that come out of the consultation, to strengthen fire safety in the building safety Bill, which will be introduced after the Government have considered the recommendations made by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee, and when parliamentary time allows.
I thank the noble Lord for, I hope, not pressing this matter to a vote. He is right in his role to hold the Government to account for delivering on the Grenfell recommendations, and I am pleased to have provided the reassurance that he sought.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for not pressing her amendment. I understand her interest in this area. More generally, we are looking at specific information-sharing provisions in the regulations and later in the building safety Bill, which we see as a first step to meeting the Grenfell recommendations on this issue.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, the other reason for resisting the public register amendment is that anyone from the general public would be able to access fire safety information about a building, which poses a security risk in the event that the information were accessed by someone with malicious or criminal intent. But the Government do agree with the principle that residents should be able to access critical fire safety information for the building that they live in, and we include proposals for this in the fire safety consultation.
I will now address Amendments 4B to 4F. First, I reiterate the intention conveyed in the other place that we share the concerns around the costs of remediation and the need to give leaseholders peace of mind and financial certainty. I have always been clear that all residents deserve to be and to feel safe in their homes. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has committed to taking decisive action to deal with the cladding crisis, and, through the Government’s five-point plan, to provide reassurance to home owners and build confidence in the housing market.
First, as has been commented on, the Government will provide an additional £3.5 billion to fund the removal and replacement of unsafe cladding on residential buildings. This will be targeted at the highest-risk buildings—those over six storeys or above 18 metres—that have unsafe cladding. This is in line with long-standing expert advice on which buildings are at the highest risk. This brings the Government’s investment in building safety to an unprecedented £5 billion or more.
Secondly, we have been clear that leaseholders in lower-rise buildings, with a lower risk to safety, will gain new protection from the costs of cladding removal through a long-term, low-interest, government-backed financing scheme. Leaseholders in a residential building that is 11 to 18 metres in height with unsafe cladding will never pay more than £50 per month towards this remediation.
It is important that this government funding does not excuse building owners of their responsibility to ensure that buildings are safe. We have been clear that building owners and industry should make buildings safe without passing on costs to leaseholders. They should consider all routes to meet cost—for example, through warranties and recovering costs from contractors for incorrect or poor work.
As the Minister for Building Safety and Fire Safety, I will ensure that we drive forward to ensure that remediation of unsafe cladding is completed. I am clear that we have an ambitious timescale to do so. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, progress has not been as fast as we would have liked, but we are making great progress, particularly given the constraints of the pandemic this year. Around 95% of high-rise buildings with Grenfell-type ACM cladding identified at the start of 2020 have completed remediation or have works on site to do so by the end of the year.
I want to be clear that, while this issue is vital, it would be impractical and confusing to include remediation measures in the Bill. This is because the fire safety orders are a regulatory framework that sets out the duties of a responsible person in relation to fire risk assessments. It does not cover the relationship, including potential financial obligations or prohibitions, between freeholder and leaseholder. The Bill is so important because it allows for effective enforcement where responsible persons are not abiding by their responsibilities. It addresses the situation where responsible persons refuse to remediate, which is an issue that I am sure the whole House wants resolved as soon as possible.
In contrast, the draft building safety Bill is the appropriate legislative mechanism for addressing the issue of who pays for mediation. Through the building safety Bill, the Government will strengthen the whole regulatory system for building safety, and ensure that there is greater accountability and responsibility for fire and structural safety issues throughout the life cycle of buildings within the scope of a more stringent regime. That Bill’s provisions will put the management of risk front and centre. It is important that remediation is addressed using its proactive mechanisms for managing fire and structural safety issues, such as the safety case. Remediation and costs to leaseholders should be dealt in the context of the Fire Safety Bill to ensure that legislation is coherent with the aims and scope of the new regime.
In response to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, I point specifically to Clauses 88 and 89 in the building safety Bill, which relate to charges. These clauses facilitate regulations that would amend the building safety Act and the Landlord and Tenant Act. We will add to what is already in the draft Bill, including additional duties on the accountable person to seek alternative funding before they pass costs on to leaseholders.
While I appreciate the desire that many noble Lords have for a quick legislative solution to the “who pays” issue, we also have a duty as parliamentarians to implement a clear framework and transparent legislation to support fire and building safety reforms. Even more than this, it is important to ensure that the practical implications of any legislation are properly worked through, rather than being rushed on to the statute book in this Bill. In this vein, I am clear that these alternative amendments do not work.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I have received a single request to speak after the Minister. I called the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
The Minister did not comment on the figures given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, which struck the House as of great concern. He said that average remediation costs could be in the order of £50,000 to £60,000 per leaseholder. Can the Minister comment on those figures?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I have seen figures in the order of £50,000, but that is an aggregate figure that covers cladding costs and more historic building safety defects. Clearly, as we bring forward the legislation to deal with these issues, which will be in the building safety Bill, we must conduct a further impact assessment, but I am aware of the figures that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans presented.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I will not speak for long. I do not want to detain the House with a long debate. I thank everyone who has spoken. We have heard many very powerful speeches, and very important points were well made. I thank the Minister for his response to my Motion A1, for the time he has taken to speak to me outside the Chamber, and for the letter I received today in addition to the all-Peers letter. It sets out some clear commitments from the Government, a plan and, most importantly, a timetable for action. I welcome this very much.
I listened carefully to the contributions of all noble Lords and agreed with almost every one. I hear the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. He may be right, but it is our job to press the Government to do the right thing by the people of this country, as the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London said. I also thank my noble friend Lord Adonis for his support. He made some very valid general points about how we deal with matters from the other place, and points specific to this Bill. I also listened carefully to the Minister’s response to Motion B. I had said that all they rely on in the other place is privilege, and his response was very fair. I can see his point—it is a shame that the other place could not—and I had not thought of it beforehand, so I accept it. We are trying to ensure, in respect of that Motion particularly, that residents, tenants, the fire authorities and the fire brigade have transparency. That is what we want to shine the light on. Perhaps the Minister will not be able to address those issues; it is a shame that the other place did not.
Sometimes the Government say, “We have an ambitious programme” or “We are striving to make progress”, but they have been very slow on this and everyone is frustrated with them. As my noble friend Lord Adonis said, it is three years and nine months since the fire, and this is the first piece of legislation. It is frustratingly slow. Can the Minister talk to the Prime Minister? These issues will not go away, and we will keep raising them until we get some proper action. He has made some commitments today, which is good, but it is only a start. This House will hold him to account on them, because so far this has been frustratingly slow.
Having said that, I am pleased that we got so far today. I have enough to withdraw my Motion A1. I hope that the right reverend Prelate moves his Motion for debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Lord Greenhalgh
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3A.
Lord Greenhalgh
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4A.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
At end insert “and do propose Amendments 4B, 4C, 4D and 4E in lieu—
“Prohibition on passing remediation costs on to leaseholders and tenants
(1) The owner of a building may not pass the costs of any remedial work attributable to the provisions of this Act on to leaseholders or tenants of that building.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a leaseholder who is also the owner or part owner of the freehold of the building.”
“Costs arising from relevant notices or risk based guidance under the Fire Safety Order
(1) This section applies to a long lease of a dwelling in a relevant building.
(2) This section applies—
(a) where a notice has been served by an enforcing authority under article 28, article 29 or article 30 of the Fire Safety Order; or
(b) where a responsible person carries out works on the basis that they are required or said to be required by the risk based guidance issued by the Secretary of State under article 50 of the Fire Safety Order.
(3) In the lease there is an implied covenant by the lessor, or any third party to the lease, that the lessor or third party shall not recover from the lessee any amount in respect of the costs of works under subsection (2) where the works are to remedy any defect, risk or issue that predated the first grant of a long lease of the dwelling.
(4) Subsection (3) does not apply where the works are to repair a deterioration in original condition.
(5) Subsection (3) does not apply to any interest or shareholding the lessee may have in any superior lessor or freeholder.
(6) This section does not apply to commonhold land.
(7) “Dwelling” has the meaning given by section 112 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 and “long lease” has the meaning given by sections 76 and 77 of that Act, save that, in the case of a shared ownership lease, it is irrelevant whether or not the tenant’s total share is 100%.”
“Restriction on contracting out of section (Costs arising from relevant notices or risk based guidance under the Fire Safety Order)
A covenant or agreement, whether contained in a long lease to which section (Costs arising from relevant notices or risk based guidance under the Fire Safety Order) applies or in an agreement collateral to such a long lease, is void in so far as it purports—
(a) to exclude or limit the obligations of the lessor or the immunities of the lessee under that section, or
(b) to authorise any forfeiture or impose on the lessee any penalty, disability or obligation in the event of the lessee enforcing or relying upon those obligations or immunities.”
“( ) Sections (Costs arising from relevant notices or risk based guidance under the Fire Safety Order) and (Restriction on contracting out of section (Costs arising from relevant notices or risk based guidance under the Fire Safety Order)) shall each come into force on the same day as section 1 comes fully or partially into force in respect of any premises in England.”
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, the rules are such that I am not allowed to make a speech. However, so that the other place can consider the very full reasons that the Minister gave, it is right and our duty to test the mind of the House. I beg to move.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, we come to day four of Report on the Domestic Abuse Bill. I will call Members to speak in the order listed. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are discouraged. Any Members wishing to ask such a question must email the clerk. The groupings are binding. A participant wishing to press an amendment other than the lead amendment in a group to a Division must give notice in the debate or by emailing the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the Question, I will collect 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 speaking on the group. We will now begin.
Domestic Abuse Bill
Wednesday 17th March 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 View all Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 171-III Third marshalled list for Report - (10 Mar 2021)
15:16 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 87 - Ayes: 310 / Noes: 232 - Amendment 87 agreed.
16:16 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 87A - Ayes: 125 / Noes: 242 - Amendment 87A disagreed.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
As it was not possible to proceed with a Division on this Bill on Monday, I will call for the deferred Division on Amendment 87, which was fully debated and pressed to a Division on Monday. No further speeches will be heard on this amendment. We begin with the deferred Division on Amendment 87, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The Question will be decided by a remote Division. I instruct the clerk to start a remote Division.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have had more emails asking me to support Amendment 87A than any other part of the Bill—I am sure that that is true for many other Members of this House. There is clearly not only great support for it across the country but a major concern about the impact on children of access to online pornography and its link with domestic abuse.
As noble Lords know, pornography is easy to access online, and we know that children are susceptible. I remember being told by the manager of a refuge about a little boy of five hitting his younger sister, who was four; when he was asked why he did it, he said, “That is what daddy does to mummy every day”. Noble Lords may remember that the 10 year-old killers of the little Bulger boy had watched the most appalling videos before they carried out this tragic murder, copying some of what they had watched.
Since age verification has been approved by both Houses, I share the view across the House that it should now be implemented in this Bill.
Lord Morrow (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I again commend the Government for bringing forward the Bill, as I have done throughout its passage through this House. I thank the Minister for the work that has been undertaken thus far. However, as the tragic events in Clapham so shockingly remind us, speed is of the essence when it comes to changing the attitude of men and boys towards women and girls in our society.
The Minister has been keen to point out that the Government’s own pornography research does not prove causation—how could it? It does demonstrate a clear association between pornography consumption and male aggression and sexual violence, as does other research in the field. In this context, addressing the impact of pornography consumption on male aggression towards women must form part of a credible legislative approach to violence against women and a credible response to the outpouring of stories that we have all been moved by this week.
In recent debates, much has been said about how Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act protects children from pornographic websites through age verification. That is certainly very important because, if Part 3 was in place now, children today would be less likely to be exposed to pornographic websites. It would therefore be less likely that they would move into adulthood with the expectation that violence is a natural part of sexual relationships, with all that this means for behaviour.
However, after the events of last week, it is also important to stress that another feature of Part 3—namely, the regulator’s power to take robust action against websites showing illegal extreme pornography, regardless of age verification—is important, because it will help foster an environment that challenges the normalisation of violence against women. It is a vital change that women and children could benefit from right now, that could have brought huge benefits from last year and, crucially, that could bring huge benefits very quickly, for reasons I will explain, if the Government implement Part 3.
The latest letter on this from the Minister comes with an estimated timetable of between 22 and 27 months for implementing Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017, with a new regulator. This is perhaps the finest example of a cannot-do, rather than a can-do, attitude to emerge from Whitehall since Sir Humphrey Appleby took his retirement. It is deeply problematic for at least two reasons. First, it clearly draws out the process to the greatest possible extent, making it as long as possible. Secondly, it rests upon a strategy that hopes that none of us will be cute enough to spot the elephant in the room.
The truth is that, if the Government were prepared to redesignate the BBFC as the regulator for Part 3 during the interim period, while the online harms Bill is being developed, then women and children would benefit within a matter of months from the very important protections that this House has already sanctioned in relation to pornographic websites. The taxpayer would also see a return on the £2.2 million investment in the steps taken in preparing for implementing Part 3.
The question the Government must answer is this: is bowing to their preference that Ofcom be the regulator, rather than the BBFC, so important that they are prepared to demand that the price for it is that women and children should be denied the protections that this House has sanctioned for them for a period of years? We can argue about how long it might take for the online harms framework to reach the point of implementation, but if we use the Digital Economy Act as a model, we can assume that the time from the arrival of the primary legislation in Parliament to the point at which it and the attendant secondary legislation and guidance are passed will be about three years. Is the Prime Minister prepared to tell the women and children of the United Kingdom that his preference for Ofcom over the BBFC is so great that women and children should be denied these important protections from pornographic websites for some years, even though he can still have Ofcom when the online harms regime comes into play? Is he prepared to ignore Women’s Aid? Are the Government saying that, because they cannot consent to this, we should cease support for this amendment and all those who want implementation now?
I trust that the Prime Minister still has his political wits about him. I trust that he will think better of taking a different position from all these bodies and the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, whom the people of this country hold in such high regard. Redesignation would take 40 days, as per Section 17 of the 2017 Act, where it was agreed that we should give the websites three months to get ready.
By my reckoning, if the Government show a fraction of the determination that we saw at the vigil in Clapham on Saturday night, Part 3, with all its protections for women and children, could be in force before this House rises for the Summer Recess. It is my great hope that the Government will do the right thing today and tell the Minister before she gets to her feet that she can announce that the Government will now implement Part 3, so that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, whose leadership on this issue demands our great respect, can withdraw her amendment.
Baroness O’Loan (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to speak today in support of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. I am grateful too for the powerful briefings and extensive correspondence on this amendment that I have received from several organisations and individuals.
Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I have seen the Government’s letter of 8 March. I found it unconvincing and I am concerned that there is a danger of completely missing the point of the amendment. As we saw over the weekend, the country is very concerned about attacks on women. I think, too, that we are all concerned about the level of violence against children, and indeed against men, in our society. It is clear that the consumption of pornography is associated with aggression and violence against women, men and children. This is an issue on which we can act today.
Had the Government implemented Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act as planned, we would have had a functioning regulator today. He or she would have been able to take a series of robust actions against any pornographic website showing illegal extreme pornography. We would have seen the introduction of age verification on pornographic websites.
Today, 14 women’s organisations, including Women’s Aid, have written to the Prime Minister asking him to instruct his Ministers to respond to the debate by making a commitment to implement Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act as an interim measure to protect women and children, treating them with dignity between now and when the online harms regime will be ready, probably in three years.
The suggestion in the Government’s letter that
“commencing Part 3 of the 2017 Act as an interim measure would … create a confusing and fragmented regulatory landscape”
is unconvincing; it is also regrettable.
The online harms Bill is not yet before Parliament; it will take time to pass through Parliament and, even if it is passed as suggested and the Government commence implementation immediately, the interim arrangements proposed today would be in place and working for two or three years before it would be realistically possible for any benefit to be experienced through such an Act. That would be years of additional protection before any further legislation was operative.
If providing a greater measure of protection for women and children is a critical issue, as the Government have said, they cannot continue to argue that the legislation that we have passed should not be implemented now, even as work proceeds on developing even better legislation for the future. With child-on-child sexual abuse, we know that between 2012 and 2016 there was a 78% rise in England and Wales. Research from 2017 on preventing harmful sexual behaviour involved interviews with young sexual offenders, asking them what might have stopped them. Their answers included “help in management of pornography”. Implementing Part 3 would do this; it would help to save and protect until new legislation is enacted.
I urge the Government to respond positively to noble Lords who have spoken in favour of this amendment and the many women’s groups that have written to the Prime Minister today, and I shall support the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, if she divides the House on this amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
We should all thank the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for Amendment 87A. It has been thrown into stark relief by the terribly tragic death of Sarah Everard.
In 2017, Parliament agreed powers to take action against any website showing illegal extreme pornography, yet although we have agreed that non-fatal strangulation is a crime, we still face the cultural normalisation of aggressive sexual activity, of which strangulation activities are the most extreme example. Fuelling such activities is violent pornography and the underlying problem of sex addiction, as explained by the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich. As with any addiction, the person requires ever more potent dosages of the source of their addiction, whether drugs, alcohol, gambling or abnormal sex. When sexual potency appears to fail, the man seeks greater stimulation in an attempt to achieve satisfaction, developing psychological tolerance to abhorrent acts. The pornography sought gradually becomes ever more extreme, with films and images made exploiting those who are vulnerable, often underage, enslaved or both. This is not about choice or self-control; the addict has surrendered choice—they are controlled by their addiction, compulsively drawn by dependence to extreme pornography. That does not absolve them from responsibility at all but, by leaving the extreme pornography there, we do not just normalise these practices but fuel the addiction, similar to the drug trafficker providing cocaine to the addict.
The Government’s own research into the impact of pornography on male aggression reported in February 2020 that
“there is substantial evidence of an association between the use of pornography and harmful sexual attitudes and behaviours towards women”.
We need robust action against websites based anywhere in the world, accessing the UK with illegal extreme pornography. Age-verification checks would ensure that children are significantly less likely to be exposed to pornographic websites, which have negative implications for their development and give an expectation that violence is a natural part of sexual relationships, with all this means for their behaviour. The terrible costs of not implementing Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act are evident. As has been said:
“It’s now easy to find content on the major porn sites of women being hung, strangled, suffocated, garrotted—and with ‘choking’ content often featuring on the front page.”
Moreover, on September 2019, the Journal of Criminal Law noted:
“Evidence suggests that the mainstream online pornography websites, while declaring such material as contravening their terms and conditions, continue to host such material”.
We cannot wait for the online harms Bill. Women up and down the country—[Inaudible.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I suggest that we move to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. If we can reconnect with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, we will return to her after the Minister.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
First, I want to acknowledge that noble Lords all around this House are concerned about the link between violent pornography and violence against women and girls. I accept that this is an important issue that needs to be debated and addressed, but I remind noble Lords of what the amendment actually says. It would require an investigation into the link between children accessing online pornography and domestic abuse. It would require the person appointed by the Secretary of State to conduct an investigation into whether such a link exists and for that person then to decide whether to implement Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act if that person thinks that implementing Part 3 would prevent domestic abuse.
Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act is about preventing children under 18 from accessing online pornography. It does nothing to control adults accessing violent pornographic content unless that content is extreme and, therefore, illegal. Extreme pornography is defined by Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 as
“grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character”.
Examples are given in the Act, which I shall not quote directly, but they are such things as an act that threatens a person’s life; an act that causes serious injury to intimate areas of a person’s body; sex with dead bodies; and sex with animals. When it says extreme, it really does mean extreme.
Part 3 requires only the policing of content that would be banned from sale in a sex shop. When we debated these measures, many noble Lords said that Part 3 did not go far enough. This amendment, if passed, would do nothing to prevent adults viewing violent pornography, other than extreme pornography, which is already illegal. The amendment would attempt to prevent those aged under 18 accessing any kind of pornography from commercial pornographic websites. Of course, I accept the argument that children under 18 should not be able to access pornography, whether from commercial websites or when it is shared on social media, which Part 3 does not cover. Part 3 provides inadequate protection for children online and does nothing to address noble Lords’ wider concerns about adults accessing violent pornography and the link to violence against women and girls.
This amendment is about preventing children accessing online pornography, because there is believed to be a link between viewing pornography and domestic abuse. The amendment would force the Government to implement Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act if such a link was proved and it was believed that implementing Part 3 would reduce domestic abuse. The Government, as I am sure we will hear from the Minister in a moment, have decided not to implement Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act because they want to incorporate different ways in which to protect children into the online harms Bill instead.
We support what my noble friend Lady Benjamin is trying to achieve in protecting children from pornography, but there are also issues with the wording of her amendment. As I said, the amendment requires the person nominated by the Secretary of State to investigate whether there is a link between children accessing pornography and domestic abuse and report within three months—a very short timescale. If the link is proved and the nominated person believes that Part 3 would prevent domestic abuse, the Government would have to implement Part 3; the decision to implement it would be taken out of their hands.
We believe that any decision to implement Part 3 should be taken by a Secretary of State, who would be accountable to Parliament for that decision, not by a person nominated to undertake a review. We also believe that the issue of protecting children from accessing pornography is wider than domestic abuse. Even if the link between children accessing pornography and domestic abuse were not established, children should still be protected from online pornography.
For those reasons, those of us on our Front Bench for this Bill cannot support the amendment. However, I can assure noble Lords that Liberal Democrats will be holding the Government to account to ensure that effective and proportionate measures are introduced in the online harms Bill to protect children online.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for her commitment on this issue—a commitment that all speakers in the debate share. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, all Peers who have spoken have acknowledged the link between pornography and violence against women.
Of course, we strongly agree that there needs to be a mechanism to prevent children accessing pornographic material. We also believe that the Government have failed to show leadership on that matter and have dragged their feet. They should already have brought the online harms Bill forward.
As Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act was going through, we in the Labour Party criticised it as inadequate because it failed to focus on where some of the most serious harm was caused—for example, by not tackling social media sufficiently. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, also made that point.
My understanding is that we now have a timeline for the online harms Bill, with pre-legislative scrutiny expected immediately after the Queen’s Speech—before the Summer Recess—and that Second Reading would be expected after the Summer Recess. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that my understanding of the timetable is correct.
We think that there are real inadequacies in Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act, and that the best way to deal with this matter is in full, and as a priority, in the online harms Bill. That will give time for the Commons to consider the amendments to this Bill that we have already sent back to it, including the supervision of dangerous perpetrators, ensuring that all women have access to life-saving services, and ensuring that child contact centres are regulated to protect our children.
I freely acknowledge that the decision we have taken to abstain on this matter has been a difficult one—but I think it would be wrong to give a misleading sense of certainty by passing this amendment, when that certainty is not merited by the Digital Economy Act. For that reason, we shall abstain on this vote.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, outlined on Monday when we began this debate, her Amendment 87A would require the Government to undertake an investigation of the impact of children’s access to online pornography on domestic abuse, and to review the commencement of Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017.
Her Majesty’s Government are committed to ensuring that the objectives of Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act will be delivered by the online harms framework. Children will be at the heart of our new online safety Bill, which will bring in a new era of accountability for online services. I am afraid I cannot comment on the timings that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked about, as announcements about the Queen’s Speech and other things have not yet been made. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord on that.
We are confident that the online safety Bill will provide much greater protection for children than would have been the case with Part 3 of the 2017 Act. Unlike that Act, the online harms regime will capture both the most visited pornography sites and pornography on social media, thereby covering the vast majority of sites where children are most likely to be exposed to pornography.
One of the criticisms of the 2017 Act was that its scope did not cover social media companies, where a considerable quantity of pornographic material is available to children. Research by the British Board of Film Classification published last year found that across a group of children aged between 11 and 17, 44% intentionally accessed pornography via a social media site, compared to 43% for dedicated pornography websites and 53% via an image or video search engine.
Crucially, however, just 7% of children accessed pornography only through dedicated pornography sites. Most children intentionally accessing pornography were doing so across a number of sources, including social media, as well as video-sharing platforms, fora, and via image or video search engines, the majority of which would not fall within scope of the Digital Economy Act, but will fall within the scope of online harms legislation.
Implementing Part 3 of the 2017 Act would therefore leave a significant gap in meeting the Government’s objective of preventing children from accessing pornography —an objective that has also been raised by noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. Our online harms proposals will achieve a more comprehensive approach and allow us to address children’s access to pornography in the round, and avoid children moving from one, more regulated, area of the internet to another, less regulated, area to access pornography.
In addition, recent technological changes could render Part 3 of the 2017 Act ineffective in protecting children if it were introduced as an interim measure. One of the Act’s enforcement powers was the power to require internet service providers to block access to material on non-compliant services. Internet service providers themselves have made it clear that they are no longer the sole gatekeepers to the internet. Current and future developments in the way the architecture of the internet functions mean that they may not always be able to offer effective blocking functions, which might make this power obsolete. These potential enforcement challenges could make age-verification very difficult to enforce via the 2017 Act, even as an interim measure.
The most recent prominent change is the introduction of DNS over HTTPS—that is a bit of a mouthful; it is also known as DoH—which, in specific implementation models, could provide an alternative route to access online content that bypasses the current filtering function of internet service providers. Other proposed internet encryption standards may in future limit even further the ability of providers to filter. The Government are actively engaging with the industry to ensure that the spread of DoH and future internet encryption standards do not cause unintended consequences. For example, specific implementation models of DoH could circumnavigate the current filtering mechanisms of internet service providers, which are used to block access to child abuse content.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, raised the definition of internet service providers in the Digital Economy Act. A reference in legislation to internet service providers or similar is usually applied in the traditional sense, requiring the major internet service providers to block access to certain websites. The Secretary of State would have to prepare revised guidance to the regulator to implement Part 3 of the 2017 Act. As the noble Lord has said, this guidance, coupled with the broader terminology of an “internet access service”, as used in European Union legislation, might offer sufficient flexibility to extend the duty for internet service providers to cover other means of accessing the internet, where technically feasible. However, the key point that my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford set out in her letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, was that, given the evolving nature of how internet services are provided, this approach lacks the necessary certainty.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
My Lords, I have received requests to ask a short question from the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow. I call the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, to ask a short question for elucidation.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
The Minister has continued to suggest that it will take a long time to implement Part 3. Why would that be the case if the Government used the BBFC as the regulator, as everything is in order in that regard, save the need to formally redesignate it, which Section 17 of the Digital Economy Act defines as needing only 40 days?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I hope that my noble friend in her letter, and I in my contribution, explained the reasons why we think it would take so long, because it has been de-designated. As the noble Lord will know, work is already going on in relation to Ofcom in preparation for the online safety Bill which, for the reasons I have outlined, we think better addresses the concerns that he and other noble Lords have raised in this debate.
Lord Morrow (DUP) [V]
My question is quite similar. Why is it more important not to have the BBFC and leave women and children with no protection at all for three years? As has already been said, if you used the BBFC, it would just take over three months to have that.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I hope that in my contribution I covered the points about the role that Ofcom can and will play in the new online harms framework, including the point I made at the end of my speech about the enforcement action that it will be able to take, not just in the UK but overseas as well.
Baroness Benjamin (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, both on Monday night and today, and the Minister for his response. Today, we are confronted with another pandemic, one that ruins lives and for some is the cause of death. That pandemic is violence by men against women. I am very grateful to all those who have spoken in support of my amendment, which attempts to deal with this pandemic. I am also touched and encouraged by the huge amount of support I have received from NGOs and members of the public. I am grateful to them.
I am, of course, very disappointed by the Government’s response, especially as the Minister cannot confirm that the online harms Bill will be debated soon. I am disappointed that, even though those who spoke so passionately in support of my amendment made it clear that we are not opposing the online harms Bill—I want it to come to the House as soon as possible—so much of the Minister’s response was devoted to that issue. I am also disappointed the Minister’s response addressed Part 3 as though it was narrowly concerned with child protection. Of course it is about child protection, but it is also very relevant to stopping domestic violence, because it would make it less likely that children are exposed to pornographic websites as they move into adulthood with the expectation that violence is a normal part of sexual relationships.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and speaker after speaker have highlighted the fact that, if Part 3 had been implemented, we would today have a regulator that would take robust action against any website showing illegal, violent, extreme pornography in the UK. As we contemplate what is happening in our country at the moment and the concerns about violence against women, the very least the Government could do would be implement Part 3 so that we can create an environment that is less hostile to women by tackling illegal, violent, extreme pornography on pornographic websites.
The Minister also said that it would take far longer than I have suggested to implement Part 3. Apart from the fact that it would take less time to implement primary legislation that has already been passed than primary legislation that has not even been published, the Minister failed to engage with the very serious point that I, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and others made that Part 3 could be in place in months if the BBFC was used as a regulator. It is capable of doing that. It is all set up to do that.
At the present time, the argument that the Government do not want to use the BBFC because they prefer Ofcom is not convincing. Nor is the argument about changes in technology; this does not hold water. The Government can use Ofcom as a regulator for the online harms Bill legislation when it is implemented, but, as a powerful open letter to the Prime Minister published today by women’s organisations makes clear, if the Government try to suggest that the safety of women should be needlessly compromised over the next few years just because they do not want to designate the BBFC as an interim regulator, that will go down very badly with the public. The public have told me that, and Members across the House have seen what the public feel about that.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Finlay, reminded us of the evidence of how the compulsive use of pornography can affect the brain and the decision-making process of the user over time. This is something we have to take very seriously indeed.
The Prime Minister quite rightly says he wants to protect women and children from violent attacks. My amendment will allow him to do so immediately, by enforcing legislation that has already been passed. Waiting on the online harms Bill means we will continue to create a conveyor belt of sexual predators who commit violence against women because of the porn they watch as boys and men.
There are times in life when we have to do the right thing, especially in the context of the current outpouring of concern about women’s safety. I believe that, regardless of what great protections an online harms Act eventually provides, history will judge that, from the perspective of the best interest of the safety of women and children in the second half of 2021, and 2022 and 2023, the non-implementation of Part 3 was a grave mistake. This is why I simply cannot let this matter go. I would be failing in my duty as a parliamentarian whose life has been devoted to promoting the best interests of women and children. Therefore, it is with a heavy heart that I wish to test the opinion of this House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I will now put the Question on Amendment 87A. We heard a Member taking part remotely say they wished to divide the House in support of this amendment, and I will take that into account.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 87B. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 87B
“Guidance on domestic abuse and offences involving hostility based on sex or gender
(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance under this section which takes account of evidence about the relationship between domestic abuse and offences involving hostility based on sex or gender.(2) In preparing guidance under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must require the chief officer of police of any police force to provide information relating to—(a) the number of relevant crimes reported to the police force; and(b) the number of relevant crimes reported to the police force which, in the opinion of the chief officer of police, have also involved domestic abuse.(3) In this section—“chief officer of police” and “police force” have the same meaning as in section 70 of this Act;“relevant crime” means a reported crime in which—(a) the victim or any other person perceived the alleged offender, at the time of, or in a recent period before or after, the offence, to demonstrate hostility or prejudice based on sex or gender, or(b) the victim or any other person perceived the crime to be motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility or prejudice towards persons who are of a particular sex or gender.”
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as is customary, I make it clear at the start of this debate that I may wish to test the opinion of the House on my amendment, though I say to the Government that if, after reflecting on the debate today and in Committee, they are willing to engage constructively with the issue of data collection and the intention behind this amendment, of course I will withdraw it.
In the last two weeks, women and men across the country have come forward to demand action. In sadness and in anger, there is solidarity. The question before us now is whether we will heed their call for change. Will we take a decision that will help ensure that all women, everywhere, can enjoy the same freedoms as men when it comes to being able to go where we want and do what we want without fear?
Our hearts go out to the family of Sarah Everard. She walked down well-lit streets and she wore bright clothes, yet today we stand here knowing that she was not safe. Since Sarah’s tragic murder came to public attention, women everywhere have shared their stories of harassment, abuse and violence at home and on the streets, and their frustration that all too frequently these crimes are not treated with the seriousness they deserve. This amendment is about how we can change that and, in the process, ensure that every police force in England and Wales learns from the best practice in this area from across the country.
Violence against women and girls does not occur in a vacuum. Hostility towards women and girls generates a culture in which violence and abuse is tolerated, excused and repeated. Gathering evidence about the extent, nature and prevalence of hostility towards women and girls and how these interplay with the experience of domestic abuse is crucial to recognising these connections. Last week, UN Women released a report which found that, among women aged between 18 and 24, 97% said they had been sexually harassed, while 80% of women of all ages said they had experienced sexual harassment in public spaces. Critically, 96% of respondents said that they did not report these incidents, with 45% saying it was because it would not change anything. It is not hard to understand why they feel this way.
Rape convictions have been dropping since 2017, and fell to a record low this year: only 1.4% of cases reported resulted in a charge. At least 1,000 fewer men accused of rape are currently being prosecuted than two years ago. A recent report by the End Violence Against Women Coalition found that almost one in three women aged between 16 and 59 will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime. More than half a million women are raped or sexually assaulted each year. There are more than 135,000 women and girls affected by FGM living in England and Wales. During the first national lockdown, the National Domestic Abuse Helpline saw an 80% increase in calls, and Karma Nirvana, which supports victims of so-called honour-based abuse and forced marriage, reported a 162% average increase in its case load. We need to explicitly acknowledge this epidemic of violence against women and girls. To do that does not mean we are saying that men are not attacked or abused; it is to recognise that these crimes are disproportionately affecting women.
Some 92% of defendants in domestic abuse-related prosecutions last year were male and 77% of victims were female. When other groups in society are targeted for a fundamental element of their being—the colour of their skin, their religious identity or their sexuality—we rightly say that this should be recognised and addressed. Amendment 87B is about doing the same for sex and gender.
This approach, and treating misogyny as a hate crime, was piloted in Nottinghamshire in 2016, under the leadership of former Chief Constable Sue Fish, who explained:
“Making misogyny a hate crime was one of the simplest tasks I’ve ever done working in the police—and yet the results that we saw were incredible. Some of the feedback we had was that women, for the first time, described themselves as walking taller and with their ‘heads held high’.”
The Crime Survey for England and Wales shows that 36% of hate crime victims said they were “very much affected”, compared with 13% for all crime. The survey also found that gender was perceived to be the motivation for more than half of hate crimes reported by women.
So we women know that we are being targeted, but the police do not. Amendment 87B is about ensuring that all police forces do something which increases the confidence of victims to report crime and helps improve their detection. In areas where misogyny has been included in hate crime reporting, there has been an increase in reporting. As police get better at identifying the motivation behind crimes, women feel more confident in coming forward.
If there is so much to support, why would anyone oppose this? I will take each concern I have heard in turn. First, some will say we should wait for completion of the Law Commission review on hate crime. I welcome that review. It has been running for nearly three years and has called for misogyny to be included in our hate crime rubric; I hope to see its outcome realised in the sentencing Bill. However, we do not have to wait for this review to ask all police forces to follow best practice and start gathering data on where existing crimes are targeted at women. We can take this step now and start benefiting from it now.
Some will say that the police do not have the resources to do everything. One chief constable actually said, “I am questioning whether a criminal offence is the best way of dealing with what is essentially an issue about how we all treat each other.” The women in Nottinghamshire were not reporting men for not opening doors for them or calling them rude names. They were reporting incidents that are crimes—sexual assault, abuse and violence. These crimes need to be recorded so that they can be properly addressed.
In addition, 11 out of the 43 police constabularies in England and Wales are currently recording misogyny as a hate crime, have trialled the policy or are actively considering implementing it—North Yorkshire, Avon and Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, Gloucester and Northamptonshire are some of the forces already putting this into practice. This approach also has the support of the national policing adviser for hate crime and metro mayors Andy Burnham, Steve Rotheram, Sadiq Khan and Dan Jarvis, and many police and crime commissioners and multiple councils around the country are passing motions in support.
Some will query the wording of this amendment, which talks about recording crimes that are motivated by sex or gender; this is the wording used by the Law Commission. The issue here should not be whether someone was born a woman or becomes one, but identifying and stopping those who target women, full stop. Indeed, while trans identity is currently protected by hate crime, sex is not. Worded in this way, the amendment ensures that no one can avoid accountability for their behaviour through discriminating or further demeaning the victim.
Some will say, “What about misandry?” Whenever a crime is motivated by hate, it needs to be recorded. But, as we have seen from the data so far, the vast majority of victims coming forward are women. For example, in the first two years in Nottinghamshire, of the 265 misogyny hate crime victims who were recorded, 243 were female and six were male.
Finally, some will rightly worry about this being part of a Bill on domestic violence and the risk of creating a hierarchy of sexual violence or reducing sentences for such crimes. This amendment is not about the sentencing element of recognising misogyny as a hate crime; it is about the data required to identify crimes and the interconnections between violence against women in the home and in the community. It complements the Law Commission’s work but is not dependent on it. It would require the police to report on those connections, rather than denying them or missing them, to the detriment of our policing.
In closing, I acknowledge the wide breadth of support for this proposal and those who have campaigned for it for many years: Citizens UK, Stonewall, Refuge, the Fawcett Society, Tell MAMA, the Jo Cox Foundation, HOPE not hate, Plan UK, Our Streets Now, Centenary Action Group, UN Women UK, the Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities, JUNO Women’s Aid and Muslim Women’s Network UK. All of them are asking for our support for this amendment today.
Across the country, women everywhere are looking to us not just to express sympathy with their concerns but to act: to stop telling them to stay at home and be careful and start finding those responsible for the violence. If we are not recording crime that is targeted at women, how can we effectively address violence against women and girls and the police’s response to it? What is happening to women of all ages, colours and backgrounds is illegal, but clearly it is not being effectively addressed. Let us take the opportunity to put that right with this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, who has made a powerful speech on her amendment, to which I will add a fairly brief footnote.
As she said, over the last few days we have seen growing pressure on the Government to alter the terms of trade, the balance of power, between men and women. The murder of Stephen Lawrence in the 1990s marked a turning point in our attitudes towards race in this country; the murder of Sarah Everard may do the same for attitudes towards women. Other noble Lords may have had telephone calls yesterday from women asking for support for this amendment. Elesa Bryers rang me, asking if she could send me a petition she had started which had some 700 signatures. I readily agreed.
It is crucial for the Government to strike the right balance in response, avoiding a knee-jerk reaction and a headline-grabbing solution that does not stand the test of time but recognising that, after careful analysis, we have to move on from where we are. I can think of few people better placed to help make that judgment than my noble friend the Minister who is replying to this debate.
Turning to the amendment, no one could say that this is a knee-jerk reaction to the tragic events of last week, as, of course, the case for it was made last month in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and others. I have reread the reply that the Minister gave on that occasion. My noble friend said:
“Given the range and depth of the work undertaken by the Law Commission, we do not think it would be appropriate to prejudice the outcome of its work, including by issuing guidance or requiring the collection of statistics along the lines proposed by the amendment. As I have said, the noble Lord rightly wants to see evidence-based policy. The work of the Law Commission will add significantly to that evidence base.” —[Official Report, 8/2/21; col. 59.]
“We do not think it would be appropriate” is not a total rejection of what we were asking for. Indeed, one could argue that the amendment would add significantly to the evidence base that the Minister referred to in her reply, because it would broaden that evidence base beyond the 11 police forces which currently collect the relevant statistics. I wonder whether my noble friend has sought the views of the Law Commission on this amendment as it completes its work.
We know that the domestic abuse commissioner is supportive of the principles behind the amendment and strongly welcomes proposed subsection (2) about issuing guidance. I was pleased to hear in her interview on Friday that the domestic abuse commissioner said she was listened to by the Government, and my noble friend can build on that basis of trust in her response today.
Winding up the debate in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, offered a way forward by suggesting that we should
“try to send some message to police forces about the benefits that other police forces which have trialled this are having from it, and to encourage them to look at it seriously.” —[Official Report, 8/2/21; col. 61.]
Perhaps that offers us the way forward today.
Rereading the briefing for this amendment, I was struck by the evidence from Citizens UK and from the organisation HOPE not hate that ideological misogyny is emerging in far-right terrorist movements, and that there has been a growth in online misogynistic abuse. Hate motivated by gender is a factor in a third of all hate crimes, the same briefing tells us—all of which reinforces the case for a fresh look at this issue.
As other noble Lords have said, we need to rebuild confidence in the police. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, referred to the case of Nottingham and the survey, where they have already adopted the measures outlined in this amendment, as she said. That survey showed, first, that the problem was taken seriously by the police and, secondly, that what Nottingham did increased public confidence in the police in the county. Adopting this amendment could do the same for the police nationally.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I was very happy to put my name to this amendment, and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, for the eloquent and detailed way in which she has introduced it.
At Second Reading on 5 January, I mentioned that I would raise the issue of misogyny and probably put forward an amendment in Committee. First, those of your Lordships who, like me, laboured through the Second Reading—there were no less than 90 contributors —were brave, but, secondly, it is interesting to note that, of all the contributors, I think I was the only one to actually mention the dreaded noun “misogyny”. I was not surprised when the Minister, in her summing up of so many contributions, also did not mention misogyny.
We fast forward to Committee, and on 8 February—the fifth day in Committee—I put forward an amendment, ably assisted by the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bull and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to all of whom I am extremely grateful. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, the Minister basically said, “We can see it is quite a good idea, but we have asked the Law Commission to look at this, and we will wait and see what it recommends”.
Now we fast forward to today—17 March—the fourth day of Report, and Amendment 87B. Harold Wilson once said that one week is a long time in politics. I do not know about the rest of your Lordships, but, for me, the last 10 weeks since Second Reading have felt like a lifetime in politics. But more to the point, as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, said very movingly on Monday, the last 10 weeks have not only seemed like a lifetime, they have also seen the loss of no less than 30 lives—30 women killed by men, whose names she read out on Monday.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, outside this place the amendment is causing quite a lot of excitement and anticipation—certainly a lot of interest —on social media, in the press and among the NGO world and women’s groups, as we have heard. It has been directly linked to the tragic and brutal murder of Sarah Everard. The Fawcett Society, which, along with other groups such as HOPE not hate, the White Ribbon Association, Tell MAMA and others that we have heard about have focused their lobbying on the need to act now against violence against women. We are told that now is the time to change. That was echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, when she introduced the amendment.
We have been asked to vote for the amendment because it will make misogyny a hate crime and will require all police forces to record where crimes are motivated by hatred of women. However, there is a lot of smoke and mirrors here. We need to be careful about allowing an emotive tragedy to be exploited in a way which will not help women and not enhance the Bill. I understand that when something as brutal as Sarah’s murder captures the public imagination, there is a desire to do something. For any of us who have been unfortunate victims on the receiving end of a violent sexual attack, let me tell noble Lords that I empathise with those expressing sorrow, anger and a feeling that they need to act, whether by attending a vigil, going on a protest—legal or otherwise—lighting a candle or even demanding more laws.
Here in this House, we need dispassionate, cool heads and to scrutinise exactly what amending the law in this way will achieve. It is hard to be objective when discussing the murder or abuse of women, of course. There may be a temptation to rush to appropriate blame beyond the perpetrator or to ascribe social and cultural explanations beyond the immediate crime. However, what are asserted as facts are often, at the very least, contentious or contested political concepts. Misogyny is one of those. It is popularly understood as hatred of women but in the past week, and even today, as has been hinted at, the police have been described as institutionally misogynist. Is it true that the police hate women? Should we repeat the mantra that society is suffering an epidemic of misogynist violence? I do not recognise that nightmarish catastrophising vision.
In the Nottinghamshire pilot on measuring misogynist hate crime that has been mentioned, misogyny can include cat-calling, following and unwelcome approaches, which can be conflated with flashing, groping and then more serious assaults. That is all thrown into the misogynist hate-crime category. Meanwhile, as we have heard from another noble Lord, HOPE not hate’s lobbying email for the amendment told us that ideological misogyny is increasingly at the core of far-right thinking, including the threat of far-right terrorism. So, we have gone from wolf-whistling to terrorism. We cannot therefore assume that there is any shared meaning of misogyny and it is therefore unhelpful to tack it on to a Bill on domestic violence or abuse.
I do not think that misogyny is widespread in society and I certainly do not believe that domestic abuse is driven by ingrained hatred of women. That flies in the face of all the nuance, complexity and evidence that we have heard in the many hours of our discussion on the Bill, whether it is our understanding of the impact of alcohol or mental health, the recognition that there are male victims or the debate that we have just had on pornography.
I understand that perhaps opinions are not enough. I acknowledge that the amendment is an attempt at collecting data to assess how much domestic abuse is driven by prejudice, anti-women prejudice. However, if we want accurate data, we should not look to hate- crime solutions because hate is almost impossible to objectively define. The amendment states that the person who defines this hate is the complainant. The police will be asked to collate data based on what
“the victim or any other person perceived the alleged offender, at the time of, or in a recent period before or after, the offence, to demonstrate hostility or prejudice”.
What would be recorded is when an accuser
“perceived the crime to be motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility or prejudice”.
That is not a reliable way in which to collect accurate data and will not help us understand perpetrators’ behaviour as it is based on perceptions, dangerously subjective and untestable legally. There are also some wholly undesirable potential outcomes. It can only encourage individuals to attribute motives to others. Even if they are completely wrong about those motives or intentions, the police will record them as hate-driven. This floats dangerously close to legislating thought crime and could well lead to finger-pointing, malicious allegations, the stigmatising of all manner of behaviour and the labelling of all manner of speech as hateful prejudice.
We already know that the fear of being accused of prejudice or hate is one key factor in chilling free speech. Being officially counted by the police as a bigot would inevitably affect free expression and close down debate. No doubt, some noble Lords will say that I should stop privileging free speech over the amendment because it will mandate the police, to quote the charities, to gather crucial
“evidence about the extent, nature and prevalence of hostility towards women and girls”
and how it relates to domestic abuse. But let us be clear. This is an illusion, too, even a deception because to present the amendment as having anything to do with women or girls is not true. Women are not mentioned in the wording and they are not the focus at all of the amendment. In fact, the language used is particular and purposeful. An amendment championed in the public realm as anti-misogyny and assumed to be about women talks of hostility towards persons who are of a particular sex or gender. That can only muddy the waters and make any data collection unreliable and opaque. Citing the Law Commission as an explanation for the wording does not work because the Law Commission has not yet reported.
Gender is not defined in UK law and is a cultural identity—malleable, subjective and one of choice. Sex is, however, a material objective reality. The Office for Statistics Regulation recently emphasised the need for clarity about definitions and stressed that sex and gender should not be used interchangeably in official statistics, and gave the example of criminal justice statistics. Highlighting that variation in the way in which data about sex is captured across the system means that it is not possible to know which definition of sex is being captured. This, in turn, places limitations on how some criminal justice statistics can be interpreted and used. I should say, in referencing the new resource Sex Matters, that by adding the word gender into this confusing mix the amendment undermines any possibility of accurate information being accrued, let alone of addressing the prior problem that that information is based on subjective perception. If our intention is for the police to track whether domestic abuse crimes against women are based on prejudice and hatred, that should be simple enough to do if the police have a clear definition and a reliable data field for the sex of victims and perpetrators. The amendment will not help and will confuse the situation.
If there is one example of misogyny in plain sight, it is surely here. If I thought that erasing the word “woman” from the maternity Bill was bad, not naming women in an amendment on misogyny seems to be even worse. More grotesquely, it could mean that women will be labelled by the police as misogynistic perpetrators if they are perceived as hostile to a person’s gender in a domestic setting. Is the mother who misgenders their child the perpetrator, the hate criminal? Should the position on sex-based rights and service provision of female staff at a women’s refuge be perceived as motivated by prejudice? The highly charged and febrile atmosphere of the past week, of which I am sensitive, in focusing on violence against women, must not pressurise us into passing an amendment that will allow the Bill to be the midwife of criminalising women with gender-critical views. It will not, anyway, help us to understand or help any victim of domestic abuse.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, for those who are wondering why I am at this position in the list, it is because I wanted to speak personally on this issue, rather than as the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesperson on the Bill. Having just listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that turns out to have been a wise decision. I remind the House of my experience of 30 years as a police officer in the Metropolitan Police service and as a survivor of same-sex domestic violence. Those are the positions from which I make this speech, rather than as the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman on the amendment.
I want to start by saying that, obviously, I cannot talk about the substance of this amendment without addressing the context of last week’s events. I echo the comments of former Chief Constable Sue Fish, quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. I did not hear Sue Fish on “Woman’s Hour”, but I want to echo what she said.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we are clearly not going to finish our scrutiny of this Bill before 6 pm, which is the time on the Order Paper suggested for the Statement which follows. Given that there is quite a lot of business still to get through, I gently appeal to noble Lords for brevity in their contributions.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I can only begin speaking on this amendment by taking a moment to think of the victims of the Atlanta spa shootings and their families. It is very early to understand motives for a deadly mass attack, but it is hard not to suspect a link to the kind of hate crime, possibly intersectional hate crime, that we are discussing today.
I want to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, and the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Young of Cookham, for their work on this amendment and their powerful presentations for it. Had I known there was a space, I or my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who backed a similar amendment in Committee, would certainly have joined them.
I will be fairly brief, noting the intervention we have just had, but it is important to note that this amendment marks a potential national step forward for a grass-roots movement which, as other noble Lords have noted, started in Nottingham. This amendment has not, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, identified, gone as far as Nottingham in data collection, but it is certainly a step in that direction. The recording of misogyny by police in Nottingham can be taken as a case study of how political campaigning works and how grass-roots, community-centred action can make a big difference in the individual community and far beyond. Now, 11 out of 43 police constabularies in England and Wales have made recording misogyny a hate crime part of their practices or are actively considering the policy.
How did this all start? It started with a community group called Nottingham Citizens, which conducted a survey that found that 38% of women had reported a hate crime that was explicitly linked to their gender and that one in five hate crimes that took place were reported. Nottingham Women’s Centre held a conference about street harassment at which the police and crime commissioner asked those who had experienced misogyny to raise their hand. The police and crime commissioner, Paddy Tipping, was quoted afterwards as saying “I just thought people should not be treated like this.” Since the change has been made in police recording in Nottingham, reports indicate that women say that they have been able to walk down the street with their heads held higher and debate and action have made a lot of men recognise the extent of the problem. I urge the House to listen to the experiences of the women of Nottingham and of the increasing areas of the country where people have had their experience understood and recorded and apply that to the victims of domestic abuse.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, linked the amendment and support for it to the current level of rightful anger in the country following the death of Sarah Everard, but as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, pointed out, the proposal originated far before that. Indeed, I have to pay tribute to the deputy leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, Amelia Womack, who has bravely publicly identified herself as a victim of domestic abuse and who has been campaigning on this issue for many years.
In response to the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about potential confusion, any examination of what has happened in Nottingham shows that real-world experience does not demonstrate significant difficulties.
It is said often that we have an epidemic of misogyny and violence against women, but my science background makes me want to be precise in my use of epidemiological wording. We have endemic misogyny. “Endemic” defines a disease that is always present in a certain population or region. Smallpox was once an endemic disease in much of the world, but we have almost eradicated it. We need to have the same target in mind, as distant as it may look, for misogyny. That is the only way that women and girls can be safe. I do not think I can put it any better, so I will finish by quoting Mel Jeffs, the former CEO of Nottingham Women’s Centre:
“Misogyny is the soil in which violence against women grows.”
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, for her work in this area. The figures that she mentioned are terrifying, and I agree with many of her points.
I received a number of emails asking me to speak to this amendment because of the level of concern about misogyny. Like many others, I am tired of misogynistic behaviour and appalled by the way that women are still treated in society. However, what looks like a simple amendment that I could support is in fact far more complicated. The amendment does not explicitly state the word “misogyny”, and to me the inclusion of the word “perception” is not precise enough.
I am grateful for the various views from other noble Lords and, as always, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, has given me much to think about and challenged my views about what misogyny actually is. I am still inclined towards a legal framework for it, but I am tired of women having to change their behaviour because of it.
However, we need to consider what we can do to prevent, report and tackle it, and which legislation it should be placed in. Both men and women are affected by domestic violence and all those affected by it deserve protection, but women are undoubtedly more commonly victims. There is only one place in the Bill where the word “female” is used and we should take absolute care with it because it is the only place where women are centred in the legislation.
Domestic abuse legislation is complicated; it should not be, but it is. Last week the Government told me that including a specific provision in the Bill for disabled people who experience abuse in the domestic environment would be too complicated. I am strongly in favour of improving law enforcement around violence against women and girls, which we desperately need, but, while I am moving towards the idea of having a legal framework for misogyny, I do not think the Bill is the right vehicle for it. We should spend more time and care on the question of hate crimes—I am particularly keen to look at disability hate crimes—than on an amendment that comes towards the end of the Bill. We should have an opportunity to explore more options to enable us to do the job that we want it to: offering protection to women and girls.
Counting women should not be complicated. The amendment is largely about the counting aspect of hate crimes. How do the police measure how many crimes of male violence against women are reported and how many are prosecuted? That is fundamental, and this is where it does not need to be complicated. Scotland passed a Bill on hate crimes last week and excluded women and misogyny from it, saying that the issue was too complicated. There is a working group led by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and many will be interested in its outcome, but that will not be for many months.
I understand that the word “gender” was added to the amendment after previous stages in another place. Earlier versions used the correct legal definition of “sex” and did not have the late insertion of “or gender” so that has not been through lengthy scrutiny. I am concerned that adding “gender” here takes away from the clarity of Clause 73 in centering women. I reiterate that anyone who experiences domestic abuse deserves support and protection. Gender is neither definable nor defined in law, so including it here could undermine the single use of the word “female” in the Bill, again given that it is women who are disproportionately affected by domestic abuse. Surely we should be concerned about whether the police take crimes of violence, abuse and sexual harassment against women seriously, not what they perceive the attitude of the perpetrator towards the idea of sex or gender to be. Sex is a protected characteristic and defined in law, and is adequate to cover the intention of the amendment if it goes forward.
The Law Commission is developing a proposal on reforming hate crimes legislation and has consulted on it. It has an open question on whether include sex or gender in future, and that section alone runs to 43 pages out of a 544-page document. I understand that it received a great number of responses but, again, it will not be reporting any time soon, so it is important that we do not prejudge that outcome. It is also notable that the Law Commission’s proposal draws on the Office for National Statistics in setting out what it means by sex and gender. After the ruling announced this morning from the High Court, it may need to go back to the drawing board. My noble friend Lord Pannick, who is unable to be in his place today, has stated that he thinks it would be very unwise to legislate on this sensitive issue until we see the Law Commission consultation.
Scotland recently removed the word “gender” from a Bill on forensic medical services for victims of sexual offences to ensure that if a woman asks to be examined by a female doctor, there is no confusion or negotiation about what that means. I would also be really interested in the opinion of the domestic abuse commissioner on this amendment, particularly on the addition of the word “gender”.
My worry is that including gender and sex as a caveat to the word “female” in the guidance would prevent domestic violence services being clear about sex. Women who have been victims of domestic abuse need to be able to access female-only services if they choose and, again, all victims of domestic abuse need to be able to access services that offer support and protection. We must take misogyny and violence against women seriously, not just seek to be seen to do something when the issue is in the headlines. It happens every single day.
The Government have just reopened the consultation on their violence against women and girls strategy. Surely that is the right place to be dealing with this complex issue, rather than via this last-minute amendment and its additional wording.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of Amendment 87B, moved by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley and supported by the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Young of Cookham. My noble friend gave the House some harrowing facts and figures today. They were shocking and, for me, illustrate why the Government need to act. This is not a time to hide away; it is the time to step up, and my noble friend’s amendment does just that.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, led the debate on misogyny in Committee. We have spent considerable time during the Bill talking about violence, and violence directed towards women. As the noble Lord told us, this hostility against women generates a culture in which violence and abuse are tolerated, excused and repeated. Understanding how that interplays with domestic abuse is important; I agree entirely with the noble Lord’s comments and analysis there.
We need a culture change, from one where violence and abuse can be excused, tolerated and repeated to one where it is entirely unacceptable and not tolerated. To bring about that culture change, however, we need evidence, and that is what the amendment is all about. All through the passage of the Bill in your Lordships’ House, we have heard appalling examples of violence and tragic outcomes, in which often women victims of violence have been killed. In the examples given to this House there is a common factor of repeated reports being made to the police and other authorities but little or no action being taken until, tragically, it is often too late.
Several police forces have started to record misogyny as a hate crime, and that is enabling valuable data to be collected. The amendment from my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley would move us further forward and require all police forces to record this information and access how it influences the incidence of domestic abuse. That would add to our understanding and help the Government in their difficult task of addressing this truly terrible situation. Sadly, that has been brought sharply into focus by the murder of Sarah Everard and the events on Clapham Common last weekend.
I am also clear that both men and women may experience incidents of violence and abuse. Nothing that I have said previously detracts from that, and we have all been moved by the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in previous debates. I agree with many of his points today, but possibly not with his conclusion. I think the amendment is a step forward, and this is an issue on which many of us agree. The noble Lord knows that I like and respect him very much, but I believe that women are more likely to experience repeated and severe abuse, including sexual abuse. I remind him of the dreadful fact that my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon told the House: 30 women were killed by their partner or ex-partner between Second Reading of the Bill and Committee on Monday night, and she read out the names of those women to the House.
I too pay tribute to Sue Fish, the retired chief constable of Nottinghamshire, for the work that she and all the officers and staff of Nottinghamshire Police have done in this area since 2016. It has become the first police force to enable women and girls to report cases of abuse and harassment as misogyny. As my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley said, thanks to the work taking place there, women in Nottinghamshire have been coming forward and reporting crimes. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, reminded us in Committee that to recognise misogyny as a category of hate crime would not make anything illegal that was not already illegal; instead, the amendment would enable a better understanding of the forms of violence and abuse that women experience by ensuring that they are all recorded effectively.
I am aware of the Law Commission’s review that is presently under way. I believe that the amendment would help it with that review, even just for a few months before it reports, and would further supplement the Government’s work in looking at the review and give them valuable data to enable them to respond positively. I am also aware of the interim report from the Law Commission and its views on sex and gender.
I concur with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. I believe that the intent behind this amendment will assist the Government in dealing with the appalling events that have been brought more sharply into focus not only last weekend but also during the discussions on this Bill.
The contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, was interesting, although it is not one that had much in it that I can agree with. For me, this is not an issue of free speech; it is an issue of dealing with the most appalling violence against women and girls and how we can deal with that effectively. I support my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley, and the Labour Benches will support her if she decides to divide the House. However, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, will respond positively and thus make a vote unnecessary.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in what has been an incredibly thoughtful debate, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, for her rather timely retabling of this amendment, which in Committee was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. The noble Baroness has highlighted how the collection of data could add to our understanding of the nature of hate crimes against women and thereby find ways of tackling it, and I agree on that. Perhaps I may make it absolutely clear to the noble Baroness that we are more than willing to engage on the issue of data collection. Not only is it crucial to our understanding of the issue, it will enable us to find solutions to some of the problems we face.
I have read the article about Sue Fish’s appearance on “Woman’s Hour”. I was rather taken aback that the woman who had instigated the collection of data in Nottingham said that she would be reluctant to come forward about something that happened to her personally because of some of the prejudice that she felt she might face. That should give us all pause for thought about the issue at hand.
I join with other noble Lords in being appalled and shocked at the killing of Sarah Everard, and again our thoughts and prayers are with her family and friends. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has pointed out, criminal proceedings are under way, but this brings into sharp focus the need to protect women and girls from violence. The Government are of course deeply committed to tackling all forms of violence against women and girls, and this Bill is a testament to that. We have also brought forward a number of measures in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which just last week was introduced in the House of Commons, to strengthen the management of sex offenders and those who pose a risk.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who said that we should not react in a knee-jerk way. I do not think that we have done that in this Bill, but I have given this issue much thought. We need to do more to keep women and girls safe from harassment, abuse, sexual and other violence, That is why in December we launched a call for evidence to inform our forthcoming Ending Violence Against Women and Girls strategy. When it closed last month, it had already received more than 19,000 responses, and in recognition of the renewed debate on women’s safety in recent days, we have now reopened it for a further two weeks to 26 March. We have already received over 120,000 responses and I would encourage the public to share their views. We will use the responses to develop a strategy to better target perpetrators and to support victims and survivors. Our aim is to publish the new strategy by the summer.
I cannot but agree wholeheartedly that all hate crimes are abhorrent and should be dealt with using the full force of the law, regardless of gender or any other characteristic. I made the position of the Government quite plain in Committee that all crimes motivated by hatred are totally unacceptable and have no place in our society. I also set out that this was the reason why, in 2018, as part of the Government’s updating of our hate crime action plan, we asked the Law Commission to undertake a review of the current hate crime legislation. This includes a review of whether other protected characteristics such as sex, gender and age should be included.
During the course of the review in 2019 and last year, the Law Commission organised events across England and Wales, speaking to as many people as possible who have an interest in this area of the law. We asked the commission to look at the current range of offences and aggravating factors in sentencing, and to make recommendations on the most appropriate models to ensure that the criminal law provides consistent and effective protection from conduct motivated by hatred towards protected groups or characteristics. In addition, the review took account of the existing range of protected characteristics to identify potential gaps in the legislation so that the review could make recommendations to ensure consistency of approach. As noble Lords will know, the consultation of the Law Commission to support the review closed in December. In that consultation, it focused on the issue of whether sex or gender should be added to hate crime law, noting that adding misogyny by itself might introduce inconsistencies to hate crime laws.
The Law Commission has pointed out that this is complex. Its consultation has highlighted a number of issues that need further consideration to ensure that adding sex or gender to the hate crime framework brings greater rather than less effectiveness to the law. This includes ensuring that linking domestic abuse and sex-based hostility does not create a hierarchy of harm in those cases of abuse where a sex-based hostility is more difficult to demonstrate and is seen as being less important. The Law Commission also talked about the need to ensure that the law itself is coherent, which is why it has been discussing the possibility of carve-outs to ensure that domestic abuse legislation does not conflict with how hate crime laws operate. These are just two examples of the complexity of this issue that the Law Commission is still working through.
I shall go back to the point made by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. Before we make long-term decisions on changes to police recording practices in this area, I still think that we should wait for the outcome of the Law Commission’s review, which is an in-depth and wide-ranging one into the complex area of hate crime. Moreover, I do not think that further legislation is required. Section 44 of the Police Act 1996 already allows the Secretary of State to require chief officers of police to provide information relating to policing in their area. This might include statistical or other information related to policing, crime and disorder. It provides the statutory basis for the annual data requirement from police forces in England and Wales, which includes recorded hate crime.
While the amendment is not needed, as the necessary powers are already in place to require forces to provide information of this kind, we agree that data can be helpful and we know that some police forces like Nottingham are already collecting it. I advise the House that, on an experimental basis, we will ask police forces to identify and record any crimes of violence against the person, including stalking and harassment, as well as sexual offences where the victim perceives it to have been motivated by a hostility based on their sex. As I have said, this can then inform longer-term decisions once we have considered the recommendations made by the Law Commission. We will shortly begin the consultation with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and forces on this with a view to commencing the experimental collection of data from this autumn.
In response to the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Paddick, the detail of the consultation is still to be worked through. That is not to exclude gender, but just to say that the detail remains to be worked out. In giving this undertaking and in the knowledge that the necessary legislation is already in place, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, will be happy to withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I have received two requests to speak after the Minister, from the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Russell of Liverpool. I will call them in that order.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I warmly thank my noble friend Lady Kennedy and the Minister for her response. Can the Minister confirm that the Nottinghamshire Police official definition is the following:
“Incidents against women that are motivated by an attitude of a man towards a woman and includes behaviour targeted towards a woman by men simply because they are a woman”?
I take it that there is no question of introducing the sex or gender terminology used in this amendment, which is different from the amendment moved in Committee, and has certainly not been endorsed by the Law Commission.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is absolutely correct about what Nottinghamshire Police records. I cannot confirm what the conclusion will ultimately be, but I have said that I will consult.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
I thank the Minister very much for that helpful response. I would like clarification on how we are going to proceed. Does she agree that the police forces currently recording crimes such as misogyny are doing so slightly differently in each case, because each police force has decided to interpret it in its own way? What the Minister’s department is about do to with the National Police Chiefs’ Council is to look at the different ways different police forces currently collect this data. I imagine she will also work with the Law Commission to take into account its evidence taken on sex and gender and its interim recommendations. Therefore, she will come out with a clarification of the guidance to be given to all police forces in England and Wales.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
I can confirm that to the noble Lord. I think a bit of consistency here would be very helpful to give us the information we seek.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken today, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Young of Cookham, who championed this amendment in Committee and again in this debate. I also pay tribute to the many campaigners and women who have taken time to contact noble Lords, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. I also pay tribute to my colleagues in the other place, namely the Member of Parliament for Walthamstow, Stella Creasy, and the Member of Parliament for Birmingham Yardley, Jess Phillips, for all their determined work in fighting for action to end violence against women and girls.
I particularly agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. This data would add to the Law Commission’s consultation and broaden the evidence base to allow us to move forward. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, who gave us a poignant reminder of the shocking figure of the number of women who have lost their lives since we started the debate. I agree with his assessment that this amendment would help us deal with the culture of misogyny and sexism in our country.
Regarding the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I respect his knowledge and experience as a former serving police officer. His insight is invaluable, and I hope he will support the offer from the Minister today and agree that this is a first step to record data. If data is not recorded, it is hidden. Data shines a light on an issue and allows it to be addressed. I will be with him, by his side, in future legislation to ensure that misogyny becomes a hate crime, which I believe the majority of the House wishes to see.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for reminding us to think of the victims of the Atlanta shooting—our thoughts are with them—and for her clear explanation of her support and of why and how the work of Nottinghamshire Police has been important. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey- Thompson: women are tired—tired of changing our behaviour to keep ourselves safe.
Therefore, I thank the Minister for her response and her confirmation that, starting this autumn, the Government will require police forces to record and flag any crimes of violence against the person, including stalking, harassment and sexual offences, where the victim perceives it as motivated by sex and gender-based hostility. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for seeking that clarification. This commitment is extremely welcome.
In the police forces already doing this, not only has it helped with detecting crime, it has helped with confidence in the police and changing the culture within the police about how to deal with violence against women. I thank the noble Baroness for confirming that the Government will move forward in this way and thank her for the way she has, as always, sought to engage positively with Members of this House to reach a consensus.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, indicated that she may press Amendment 87C to a Division. Does she wish to move it?
Amendment 87C
Baroness Deech
“Transfer of joint tenancies and survivors of domestic abuse
(1) This section applies where there are two or more joint tenants under a secure or assured tenancy and the landlord is a local housing authority or a private registered provider of social housing.(2) If one joint tenant (“A”) has experienced domestic abuse from another joint tenant (“B”) then A may apply to the county court for an order that B is removed as a joint tenant, such application to be on notice to B, any other joint tenant, and the landlord.(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) it is sufficient that the domestic abuse was directed at A or to anyone who might reasonably be expected to reside with A.(4) On such an application, the court must take the following approach—(a) the court must be satisfied that the tenancy is affordable for A, or will be so within a reasonable period of time;(b) if the court is so satisfied, then—(i) if B has been convicted of an offence related to domestic abuse against A or anyone who might reasonably be expected to reside with A, the court must make an order under this section;(ii) if B has been given a domestic abuse protection notice under section 20, or a domestic abuse protection order has been made against B under section 26, or B is currently subject to an injunction or restraining order in relation to A, or a person who might be reasonably expected to reside with A, the court may make an order under this section;(iii) if the application does not fall within sub-paragraph (i) or (ii), then the court may make such an order if it thinks it fit to do so; (c) for the purposes of subsection (4)(b)(ii), the court must adopt the following approach—(i) if B does not oppose the making of such an order, then the court must make it;(ii) if B does oppose the making of such an order then it is for B to satisfy the court that, as at the date of the hearing, there are exceptional circumstances which mean that the only way to do justice between A and B is for the order to be refused.(5) Where A has made such an application to the court, any notice to quit served by B shall be of no effect until determination of A’s application or any subsequent appeal.(6) Notwithstanding any rule of common law to the contrary, the effect of an order under this section is that the tenancy continues for all purposes as if B had never been a joint tenant, save that B remains liable on a joint and several basis for any debts, arrears or penalties accrued prior to the making of an order under this section.(7) For the purposes of this section, an offence related to domestic abuse includes, as against A or anyone who might be reasonably expected to reside with A, an offence of violence, threats of violence, criminal damage to property, rape, other offences of sexual violence or harassment, coercive control, breach of injunction, breach of restraining order, or breach of domestic abuse protection order.(8) In section 88(2) of the Housing Act 1985, after “section 17(1) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (property adjustment orders after overseas divorce, &c.)” insert “, or section (Transfer of joint tenancies and survivors of domestic abuse) of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021,”.(9) In section 91(3)(b) of the Housing Act 1985, after sub-paragraph (iv), insert—“(v) section (Transfer of joint tenancies and survivors of domestic abuse) of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021;”.(10) In section 99B(2)(e) of the Housing Act 1985 (persons qualifying for compensation for improvements), after sub-paragraph (iv) insert—“(v) section (Transfer of joint tenancies and survivors of domestic abuse) of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021;”.(11) This section comes into force on a day appointed by the Secretary of State in regulations.”
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
My Lords, relying on the Minister’s very constructive commitment that there will be a consultation in the summer, followed by action as speedily as possible and legislation if appropriate, this amendment is not moved.
“( ) section (Controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship),”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the proposed new Clause in the name of Baroness Lister of Burtersett that amends section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015.
“( ) section (Strangulation or suffocation),”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the proposed new Clause in the name of Baroness Newlove that provides for an offence of strangulation or suffocation.
( ) section (Prohibition on charging for the provision of medical evidence of domestic abuse) so far as relating to England;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Secretary of State power to issue guidance about the proposed amendment in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar which prevents certain health care professionals who either assess a patient under an NHS contract, or provide services wholly or mainly under an NHS contract, from charging victims of domestic abuse for the provision of evidence of their injuries.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 91. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 91
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that statutory guidance issued alongside the Domestic Abuse Bill takes into account any violence against women and girls (VAWG) strategy adopted by the Government, so that efforts to prevent and address domestic abuse are linked to integrated and coordinated responses to tackle VAWG.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 91 in my name and those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger. I am grateful for their support on this important issue. I am also grateful to the End Violence Against Women Coalition, which has helped with the amendment.
The amendment is very modest. It simply ensures that the statutory guidance on the Bill takes into account any violence against women and girls strategy adopted by the Government, to ensure that efforts to prevent and address domestic abuse are co-ordinated and integrated with wider VAWG strategies.
We have retabled this amendment on Report, in part because it rather got lost in debate on the lead amendment it was grouped with in Committee, but more importantly because we were at a loss at to why the Government did not feel able to accept an amendment which does no more than give legislative underpinning to what they claim is their intention.
We are extremely grateful to the Minister, who found time to see us and for the frank discussion we had. However, we came away even more puzzled because it seemed that we agreed on all the arguments relating to the amendment other than the need for the amendment itself.
The amendment has the support of the domestic abuse commissioner-designate and is also one of a small number of amendments that the EHRC have briefed in support of. The latter points out the overlap between domestic abuse and many other forms of VAWG, such as rape and sexual assault. They cite statistics that show that most rapes and sexual assaults are carried out in the context of domestic abuse. Indeed, a Home Office fact sheet on the domestic abuse commissioner states:
“We believe that there is merit in introducing a Domestic Abuse Commissioner specifically to focus on the issues affecting victims of Domestic Abuse. However, we know that a large proportion of sexual violence occurs within a domestic context, and the Commissioner will play an important role in raising awareness and standards of service provision across all forms of Violence Against Women and Girls.”
Why is there resistance to an amendment that simply reflects this position?
The Home Office statement shows that it is quite possible to make an explicit link with to VAWG without in any way diluting the focus on domestic abuse. Moreover, the Minister acknowledged in Committee that
“domestic abuse is, at its core, a subset of wider crimes against women and girls”,—[Official Report, 10/2/21; col. 427.]
which is not to deny that men and boys can also be victims. So in the interests of coherence and a holistic approach, it surely makes sense for the statutory guidance explicitly to reflect that.
The Minister also said in Committee:
“We know that victims’ needs must be at the centre of our approach to domestic abuse.”—[Official Report, 10/2/21; col. 425.]
As the Minister well knows, as evidenced by the lived experience of organisations on the ground, in practice those needs all too often cannot be neatly separated out into domestic abuse and other forms of VAWG. Again, this needs to be recognised in the statutory guidance. Yet in Committee, the Minister said that the amendment was not necessary and that Clause 73(3), which the amendment seeks to augment, is sufficient. That really was her only argument against it. The existing subsection, which was inserted by the Government in response to calls for an explicitly gendered approach, requires account to be taken, so far as is relevant, of the fact that the majority of domestic abuse victims are female, but it says nothing about violence against women and girls as such. The amendment would complement and strengthen the subsection.
The EHRC certainly does not agree that the existing clause is sufficient, nor do the many organisations on the ground working with women subjected to violence in its many forms, including domestic abuse. I will not repeat their wider arguments about the separation of the domestic abuse and VAWG strategies that I made in Committee, but it is important to understand the sector’s concern about this because it provides a context for the amendment. Indeed, EVAW and 11 other specialist organisations with expertise in supporting survivors of domestic abuse and other forms of violence against women wrote to the Minister last week urging her to support the amendment. Please do not underestimate the message it is sending out to these and other stakeholders, which are already very unhappy about the separation of the strategies. If the Government continue to hold out against this minimalist amendment, I am pretty sure that it will be taken as evidence that, for all their fine words, they will not pursue an integrated approach to violence against women and girls and domestic abuse. Symbols matter, and refusal to accept the amendment will be seen as a pretty negative symbol.
Even if the sector’s fears are unfounded, there is another reason why the amendment is necessary. We all appreciate the commitment of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and Victoria Atkins, the other Minister with responsibility for these matters, but Ministers do not remain in their positions forever. Indeed, I have already read speculation that the latter might be heading for the Cabinet. Future Ministers might not share their understanding of the symbiotic relationship between VAWG and domestic abuse. Requirement by law of explicit reference to that in the guidance would future-proof the guidance. Moreover, it would help to ensure compliance with Article 7 of the Istanbul convention, which requires
“a holistic response to violence against women”,
which of course includes domestic abuse.
At a time when public attention is rightly focused on violence against women in the public sphere, it is all the more important that the Bill, through the statutory guidance, makes explicit the link between domestic abuse and the many forms of violence against women that are even more prevalent in the private domestic sphere. It is not too late for the Government to accept this extremely modest amendment, or to signal that they will bring forward their own amendment at Third Reading. There really is no convincing argument against it and recent distressing events have strengthened the arguments for it. I beg to move.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak in support of Amendment 91, to which I added my name, and which has been so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I note my interests in this area as declared in Committee.
I too am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for finding the time to talk to us about this. However, as I have said before, it is important that the VAWG strategy is referenced in the Bill, because separate domestic abuse and violence against women strategies, albeit complementary ones, will not be more effective than an integrated one. As we have already heard, it is something that a number of organisations working in this space have highlighted as a gap that is very important to address, especially in the light of the events of this past week. This short amendment would neatly remedy this issue, and I hope that the Minister will undertake to think again and accept it.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester [V]
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 91. I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Hodgson, for their very clear explanations of it.
The Government have said that they will ratify the Istanbul convention with this Bill. Article 7 requires “a holistic response” to ending violence against women and girls. As has been said, all that Amendment 91 seeks to ensure is that there is coherent join-up. The statutory guidance issued alongside the Bill must be linked with any violence against women and girls framework.
It was very good to hear the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, say last week in response to the amendments on Jewish marriage that a larger section on faith and spiritual abuse is in the draft guidance, following work with the Faith and VAWG Coalition, which a number of us have requested. Amendment 91 simply seeks to add similar coherence.
As has been said, I am extremely grateful to the Ministers here now, who are passionate about the Bill and committed to ensuring that we join the dots, but that might not always be so. Therefore, we cannot rely on good intention alone.
I confess that I am utterly bewildered and baffled as to why the amendment is being resisted, given that it would simply ensure that the guidance is clear about the right hand and the left hand being co-ordinated. If there is nervousness about a focus on women and girls, the reality is that the Government have committed to a VAWG strategy. They do not have a violence against men and boys strategy; if they did, we would ask for it to be named and linked in as well. Not accepting the amendment, which is simply about the statutory guidance, will make a very strong negative statement, not least at this poignant time.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, Clause 73(3) is the one and only reference in the Bill to the fact that the majority of victims of domestic abuse are female. This is therefore an important part of the guidance that should stand alone as fact, unencumbered. Also, adding in a link to
“any strategy to end violence against women and girls adopted by a Minister of the Crown”
seems far too open-ended politically. None of us here knows what the strategy might comprise. Will we agree with that strategy, and should we have blind trust in Ministers of the Crown? It seems like a rather unreliable hostage to fortune.
I am also nervous that this again takes us into the murky area of contested political explanations of domestic abuse, in the name of joining the dots. The Bill, rightly, gives both practical support to victims of domestic abuse, and criminal redress. Its job is not to supply a closed narrative. I am all for political debate on these issues, but statutory guidance could close down such a debate. There is a debate to be had on these matters, because we do not all agree—and we do not all need to agree—on the causes of violence against women or domestic abuse.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I just want to get something off my chest. With the greatest respect, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, that this debate was delayed by 45 minutes because the previous business overran. It is essential that we give this important Bill the consideration that it deserves.
Clause 73(3) of the Bill, as currently drafted, requires that any guidance about domestic abuse issued by the Secretary of State
“must, so far as relevant, take account of the fact that the majority of victims of domestic abuse in England and Wales … are female.”
I expressed concerns in Committee about the importance of not excluding victims of domestic abuse who are not women or victims of male violence from the provisions of the Bill, including any statutory guidance by the Secretary of State. One-third of all victims of domestic abuse are male, and some women victims will be in same-sex relationships—to give but two examples. I was reassured on these points by the Minister’s response from the Dispatch Box in Committee.
But the majority of victims of domestic abuse are victims of male violence, and it makes absolute sense that any guidance about domestic abuse, as far as relevant, takes into account any government strategy to end violence against women and girls. We will support this amendment if the Minister cannot give sufficient reassurance that it is not necessary to include the wording in the Bill.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My noble friend Lady Lister said at Second Reading that
“the Bill should state explicitly that the statutory guidance must take account of the VAWG strategy. Failure to do so ignores the reality of women’s experiences”.—[Official Report, 5/1/21; col. 40.]
On that day in January, we could not have predicted that the violent reality of women’s experiences would be brought into such sharp relief by the terrible tragedy of the abduction and murder of Sarah Everard last week and the subsequent scenes of protest by women across the United Kingdom.
Many decades ago, I taught at Priory Park School in Clapham. I lived in Helix Road in Brixton and walked those same streets as a young woman. They are some of the capital’s most populated, brightly lit and well-walked paths. Women across the country took to social media to discuss their experiences of walking the streets and the lengths that they went to in feeling safe. Many testimonies exposed stories of being followed, harassed, catcalled, assaulted and exposed to by men. In the year to last March, 207 women were killed in Great Britain and 57% of female victims were killed by someone they knew—most commonly a partner or ex-partner.
The Prime Minister said about the Sarah Everard tragedy that her death
“must unite us in determination to drive out violence against women and girls and make every part of the criminal justice system work to protect and defend them.”
I respectfully suggest to Mr Johnson that he begins by looking at some of the legislation already passed by the Welsh Government in this area. Their Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015 required local authorities and health boards to prepare a strategy to tackle violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence.
As the leader of Newport, my cabinet approved the Gwent VAWDASV strategy in May 2018. It contained six regional priorities that are today being delivered locally. It is a tangible and practical application of lawmaking, which is helping to change perceptions and promote recognition of such suffering in our society. In this House and from this shadow Front Bench, I am determined to keep making those differences to people’s lives in the wider context of the UK Government’s ability to make laws that will help to prevent domestic abuse and support the survivors of such abuse. I strongly support the inclusion of Amendment 91 in the Bill.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I start by acknowledging the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on what Helena Edwards said—that is something upon which we should all reflect.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, Amendment 91 relates to the linkages between domestic abuse and wider violence against women and girls. The Government are working on two new strategies, due to be published later this year, the first of which is a violence against women and girls strategy, replacing the old one, which expired in March 2020, followed by a complementary domestic abuse strategy. The amendment seeks to ensure that any guidance issued under Clause 73 of the Bill takes into account
“any strategy to end violence against women and girls adopted by a Minister of the Crown.”
The main concerns raised by proponents of the amendment centre around the Government’s decision not to produce a single, integrated violence against women and girls strategy that includes domestic abuse. This has wrongly been interpreted as an attempt to downplay the gendered nature of domestic abuse.
It is irrefutable that, while anyone can be a victim of domestic abuse, it is a crime of which the majority of victims are women. We recognise the gendered nature of domestic abuse, and the Bill acknowledges this in Clause 73(3), which provides:
“Any guidance issued under this section must ... take account of the fact that the majority of victims of domestic abuse ... are female.”
The draft guidance we have published does just that. We have been clear that the two strategies will complement each other and that the Government fully recognise that domestic abuse is a subset of violence against women and girls.
The Bill is focused on domestic abuse, and for good reason. Domestic abuse is one of the most common crime types, with 2.3 million victims a year, and the cause of tackling it and providing better support and protection for victims is deserving and indeed requires its own Bill, commissioner and strategy. We are producing a separate but complementary domestic abuse strategy in order to continue working on the excellent provisions created by the Bill because, as I have said, domestic abuse deserves this unique consideration.
I reiterate that, in producing a discrete domestic abuse strategy, the intention is to create space to focus on this high-harm and high-prevalence form of VAWG, while allowing space for other VAWG crimes to be considered as part of the VAWG strategy. The two strategies will work together to drive down VAWG crimes and their impact on society, and both strategies will continue to recognise the gendered nature of these crimes. As I have said, the strategies will complement each other and share much of the same framework and evidence.
We recently concluded the call for evidence for the violence against women and girls strategy, through which we also welcomed evidence on domestic abuse. However, as I said in the previous debate—I now have an updated figure—we have reopened the call for evidence for two weeks to allow a further opportunity for everyone’s voice to be heard. As of last night, the call for evidence had received just shy of an incredible 137,000 responses, and I hope that we will now receive many more.
As such, we fully acknowledge the direct link between domestic abuse and violence against women and girls, but the Government do not think that this amendment is necessary or appropriate for a domestic abuse Bill. The Bill already recognises the gendered nature of domestic abuse, and we do not think that a reference to a separate VAWG strategy is directly relevant to the Bill. If it were to refer to any strategy, it should be the planned domestic abuse strategy, but, for the avoidance of doubt, I am not advocating an amendment to this effect.
I do not think that I have persuaded the noble Baroness; I hope that I have and that she will be content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]
I thank noble Lords and all who spoke in support of this amendment. I was puzzled by the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, because most of it did not seem to be relevant to this amendment at all. I am even more puzzled and disappointed by the Minister’s response—I think she knew very well how I would respond. As far as I can see, the arguments have not moved on since Committee, whereas our argument has.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I call the Minister to respond. Are you there?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
My host muted me and I could not unmute—I apologise for that temporary blip that delayed my response.
On the question about whether it will be explicitly referenced, I say that the two are so closely interlinked. The noble Baroness asked that question in all good faith, so I will write to her, telling her and giving detail on how one will reference the other.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 92. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 92
Lord Ramsbotham
“( ) Any guidance under this section must include information on—(a) the links between—(i) domestic abuse, and(ii) speech, language and communication needs;(b) the impact of witnessing domestic abuse on children’s speech, language and communication; (c) the services available to support people with speech, language and communication needs who are experiencing domestic abuse and their children, including how support provided by local authorities can be made inclusive and accessible to people with speech, language and communication needs.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require that the guidance the Secretary of State issues under the Bill, including to local authorities, includes information on the links between domestic abuse and speech, language and communication needs, the impact of witnessing domestic abuse on children’s speech, language and communication, and the services available to support people with those needs, and their children.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
Amendment 92 is in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady Whitaker, and the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin. As in Committee, I declare an interest as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Speech and Language Difficulties.
In Committee, I tabled a number of amendments designed to have the speech, language and communication needs of victims of domestic abuse and their children included in the Bill. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for his response in Committee and for seeing me and a number of colleagues last week to discuss how this might be taken forward. I was particularly pleased to hear that officials were studying the issue, and I am pleased to learn from them that the Government are thinking of making revisions to the Bill before Royal Assent.
When moving a previous amendment, I reminded the House that many noble Lords often raised matters which they thought should be on the face of legislation during the detailed scrutiny that each Bill received in this House, which Bill teams almost invariably briefed their Ministers to turn down, but the method behind the apparent madness of the proposers of such amendments was that officials cannot be expected to know as much detail as professionals in the field, and their successors may well be grateful for having had their attention drawn to particular detail.
One example of this was quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, very movingly on the first day on Report, when she referred to the traumas suffered by one of her daughters after witnessing the horrific murder of her father, following which she required speech therapy. If the traumatic effects on children of witnessing horrific events such as domestic abuse had been set down somewhere, officials might know what to advise the victims. It makes sense for a Government to draw on the advice of experts in drawing up a Bill and, as they draw up this piece of legislation, I appeal to them to listen to the expertise of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, I CAN, the leading children’s communication charity, and the Association of Youth Offending Team Managers, all of which support the amendment.
The ability to communicate is a vital life skill, and early speech and language training an important factor in every child’s health and development—which I am glad the Minister recognises. As I said in Committee, those victims of domestic abuse who also face communication barriers are arguably among the most vulnerable, given the added difficulties that they face in asking for help. This is why the Government should make it abundantly clear that local authorities should consider what additional barriers they may have erected, preventing victims seeking refuge or access to other, safer accommodation services.
I have gone on quite long enough. My amendment is designed to provide a new opportunity for the Government to set out how they propose to issue guidance to local authorities under Part 4 of the Act. There are four aspects to any guidance, which will each be covered by a following speaker. The first is the link between domestic abuse and speech, language and communication needs. The second is the impact of witnessing domestic abuse on children’s speech, language and communication needs. The third is the services available to support people with speech, language and communication needs who are experiencing domestic abuse; and the fourth is how support provided by local authorities can be made inclusive and accessible to people with speech, language and communication needs. I beg to move.
Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and to support the work that he has done on this amendment from the start of the Bill. I will not repeat the arguments for the amendment because, frankly, I think the Government have got the point that children and adults with speech and language difficulties are at greater risk of abuse than others and are therefore among the most vulnerable victims of domestic abuse. They have asked for, deserve and should now be given extra protection. In the debate we have heard powerfully from many noble Lords how much support there is for action in this Bill which will help these children and adults, because they face not only physical abuse but collateral dangers such as other mental health issues, substance misuse, literacy difficulties, learning disabilities, brain injury, neurodiversity, cognitive issues and, for many, rough sleeping and homelessness.
Including references to speech, language and communication needs in the Bill’s statutory guidance is what we are after. If we do this, we can ensure that the issues can be properly addressed so that some of the most vulnerable people can access the support that they need. I think the Government will say this evening that they have listened, but what we are listening out for is assurances that the guidance itself will be explicit on this point.
To make the Government’s task easier, the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists has done the hard work. The experts to which the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, referred have suggested a few specific ways of strengthening the guidance, and we are all grateful to them for their thoughtful and expert help throughout this Bill. They suggest:
“The Draft Statutory Guidance Framework might be strengthened by specifically referencing speech, language and communication needs in the following ways”,
I ask the House to bear with me while I read what they said. In chapter 2, “Understanding Domestic Abuse”, they said:
“Referring to speech, language and communication needs as a separate and specific intersectionality, inserting in Paragraph 58 that they are one of the barriers to people leaving … inserting in Paragraph 79 that they are one of the specific impairments that may result in people experiencing abuse.”
In chapter 4, “Agency Response to Domestic Abuse”, they suggest:
“Inserting in Paragraph 176 that they are a specific vulnerability and a barrier to disclosing information and seeking support”.
Finally, in chapter 5, “Commissioning Response to Domestic Abuse”, they say:
“Inserting a reference in Paragraph 232 that they are one of the diverse needs to which local strategies and services have to respond … Inserting a reference in Paragraph 247 that they are an additional barrier that people experiencing domestic abuse face. The Government could also usefully commit to ensuring that the national statement of expectations, which is due to be published later this year, references speech, language and communication needs.”
I will press the Minister to give us an answer, because these are modest but powerful changes. They should be accepted and incorporated in the guidance. As I said, this hard work has already been done for the Government. It is the least that the Government can now do. Having recognised that there is a specific problem, it can be addressed here, even if not entirely solved. We seek the Minister’s assurances that he will absolutely do this.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. I shall focus my remarks on the first half of paragraph (c) in the amendment, which deals with
“the services available to support people with speech, language and communication needs who are experiencing domestic abuse and their children”.
I am sure that all noble Lords welcomed the Government’s assurance in Committee that they are committed to ensuring that victims of domestic abuse and their children get the right support to meet their individual needs. As we know, these are often multiple, complex and interlinked. That means that the right support will necessarily involve a whole range of different professionals in domestic abuse services, so that, first, those individual needs can be identified and, then, the appropriate support can be provided, both to the individuals and to the other professionals working with them.
It may sound to us like a no-brainer, but, of course, for those with communication needs, it is absolutely vital that the services provided include, as the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, so cogently argued, speech and language therapy services. It is worth considering for a moment what difference that provision can make to people who have experienced domestic abuse, their children and the professionals working with and supporting them. Is it marginal or insignificant? Perhaps it is just an optional extra.
I suggest that, before we answer, we just pause and place ourselves in their shoes. Let us imagine how much being unable to communicate would compound our sense of vulnerability, anxiety and distress, not to mention the real danger in which we as a victim might still be. Only when we have answered that question can we presume to say whether support really matters.
What does that support look like? I suggest that it has three key aspects. First, it would ensure that any communication needs that people who had experienced domestic abuse, or their children or the perpetrators of domestic abuse, might have were identified in a timely and professional manner. Secondly, it would ensure that the communication barriers to referrals, risk assessments, support programmes and perpetrators’ preventive and rehabilitative sessions were removed. Thirdly, and no less important, it would ensure that training was provided to professionals in communication needs, in how those needs present and in how to adapt assessments and interventions so that those with communication needs can access and benefit from risk assessments and support services. Such training would enable them to know when specialist involvement from speech and language therapy would be beneficial.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, explained, much has been made of the statutory guidance. We all know how important it is. That is why it is imperative that a reference to speech and language therapists be included as one of the professions that have a role to play in securing better outcomes for people who have experienced domestic abuse and their children, and in helping prevent domestic abuse by contributing to work with perpetrators.
How warmly an assurance on that point from my noble friend the Minister would be welcomed by me and other noble Lords, by the excellent Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists—of which I am proud to be a vice-president—and, of course, by victims of domestic abuse with communication needs, on whose behalf, as someone who himself has communication needs, I wholeheartedly support these amendments.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I do not intend to replicate the points made by three excellent and very focused contributions; my comments will be not be instead of but additional and complementary to those, but I will stick to my complementary points because that will assist with brevity and perhaps even with clarity.
In backing the amendment, I want to bring to the House two examples from my experience. The first is the major investigation into heroin abuse that I carried out in 2002 in the mining villages of north Nottinghamshire, where I spoke to more than 300 local heroin users. I found one extraordinary correlation that I did not expect. While they had very different stories, backgrounds and situations, every single one of them bar none had suffered some form of major trauma in childhood. That trauma had not been noted by the system—by which I mean primarily schools and, in some instances, social services, but I am concentrating particularly on what schools missed—or, where it was noted, it was not addressed.
I cited in that inquiry specific examples of young children, primary school children, who got to school late because they did not know when they were meant to get up, because no parent was available to get them out of bed. So they would arrive at school at various times and in various forms of wear to try to participate. My experience was that they were not as successful in school as they could have been. But there was no additionality in the local authority, in its processes and in its funding to identify those problems.
Some children had experienced significant violence in their household, sometimes done to them, and, of course, where there was domestic violence against the mother, there was often violence also against the children. That was a critical part of the trauma in many cases. Such trauma can manifest in very different ways at an early age. One of the most common ways that I found was truancy; in other words, the simple act of not attending school, particularly when it was secondary school. What I noted with some disdain—and I continued to do so for many years, though I would argue against it—was how certain children were categorised as disruptive and their behaviour regarded as dysfunctional, which, on the face of it, it sometimes certainly was, and they did not attend school and school was often happy not to have them.
The fundamental problem that then arises is the effect on all the core communication skills, not least literacy. In a disproportionate number of cases, that directly correlates with domestic abuse, as spelled out in this Bill, in the household. That is example number one.
Example number two is that of a friend of mine, Terry Lodge. He was badly abused as a child. There was always violence, and as a consequence Terry did not go to school. He did not go to primary school as often as would have been helpful, and he did not go to secondary school at all. He was forced to work, and put into major industrial manual work at the age of 11 by his family.
Terry’s is one of the cases I took to the national child abuse inquiry. I represented him there, and I still assist him. He has had a full apology from the local authority, but no compensation yet, four years after his apology. That is absurd and disgraceful—and, more importantly, in my view, damaging. All the way through, Terry Lodge has had one primary request: he never learned to read or write. Nobody is prepared to address that fully. His compensation, if it ever emerges, will be for being handicapped in the labour market, because he could not get to the levels he would have reached if he had been able to read and write.
That directly relates to this amendment, and what it would create. That requirement, in terms of what local authorities do and how they see the world that they are dealing with, is a fundamental weakness in our systems that still exists today. I therefore commend this amendment to the Government. It is vital, and I hope they will accept it.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Speech and Language Difficulties, as patron of the British Stammering Association, and as a stammerer myself. I warmly endorse all that previous speakers have said, and I thank the Minister for his helpful meeting a few days ago.
I shall briefly address the issue of local authority support, as addressed by paragraph (c) of this important amendment. It is good that the Government have confirmed that local authority strategies will be published, in line with the public sector accessibility regulations, but we need more. Local authorities must also ensure that those will be available in properly inclusive formats, which people without mobiles or access to the internet can see, and in languages other than English.
That is because speech and language therapists, as is mentioned in the useful briefing from the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, report that various domestic abuse assessments, often verbally communicated, have not always been understood by people with communication needs, because of the level of understanding, retention and processing required, and often also because of their state of mind, exacerbated by stress brought on by abuse. It is difficult for people who are accustomed to communicating with ease to understand the real impediments to understanding experienced by some of those with communication needs.
The consequence, of course, is that assessments will not reflect the problem, appropriate support will not be forthcoming, and any rehabilitation or prevention programme will fail. What a waste of time and resources. Sadly, it is not uncommon for people with learning disabilities, including children, to be abused, and they are at greater risk of an inadequate professional response if we cannot ensure an effective way to communicate with them.
We need more developed and targeted guidance on how to do this—for instance, following my noble friend Lady Andrews, we could insert references, at paragraphs 81 and 105 in chapter 2 of the draft statutory guidance framework, to accessible information and inclusive communication, and we could state explicitly, in Chapter 4, paragraph 125, that any reference to risk assessment must list speech, language and communication needs as a specific vulnerability which requires an appropriate format. Plain English would be a good start.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is relevant to remind the House that I chair the National Mental Capacity Forum, working for those with a very wide range of impairments to mental capacity. It is a great pleasure to follow such excellent arguments made in support of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham.
The draft guidance currently includes a specific reference to special educational needs and disabilities. That is welcome, but not adequate. I greatly appreciate having been able to meet staff from the team writing the guidance and to be able to engage constructively to ensure that the communication needs of different groups are recognised and must be met. Communication is far more than expressing words. There is non-verbal communication, and there are language difficulties, word- finding difficulties and a wide range of developmental factors, particularly in children and young people, that need highly specialised speech and language therapy support. Going without such support will further damage the person’s life chances and increase their risk of abuse.
Some speech, language and communication needs are the result of a lifelong condition or disability—some 10% of children and young people can have these—but speech, language and communication needs can also be the result of environmental factors. For instance, in areas of social disadvantage, up to 50% of children can start school with delayed language or other identified communication needs. Such needs are often overlooked and go unidentified for years.
All this is worsened by abuse. There is clear evidence that witnessing domestic abuse impacts on children’s speech, language and communication. Speech and language therapists work with vulnerable children and young people—for example, in services for children in care, children in need, and those at risk of permanent exclusion or of involvement with youth justice services. The therapists report that large numbers of those children and young people have also experienced or witnessed domestic abuse. One speech and language therapy service alone reports that 58% of the children and young people on its caseload have witnessed or experienced domestic abuse.
A speech and language therapist working in a secure children’s home reports a high prevalence of communication needs among children and young people who have experienced significant levels of abuse themselves. Many of them have also witnessed domestic abuse in their home settings. These children and young people have been placed in a secure home under welfare care orders rather than youth justice instructions. A secure home is considered the best place to keep them safe, given the significant challenges to their mental health and well-being associated with the trauma they have experienced, and provides a contained and therapeutic environment.
Take Faisal’s experience. Taken into care as a young teenager after years of observing domestic abuse between his parents, at 15 Faisal had language disorders associated with learning difficulties and attachment difficulties. Joint working by the social worker and the speech and language therapist has been essential to improve his life chances.
Including specific references to speech, language and communication needs in the Bill’s statutory guidance will help ensure better support for children and young people who have experienced or witnessed domestic abuse, by specifically referencing speech, language and communication needs in Chapter 3—“Impact on Victims”. This should reference that deterioration in speech, language and communication can result from experiencing or witnessing domestic abuse, and should ensure that speech, language and communication needs are addressed, supported by ongoing academic research.
I hope the Minister will provide the assurance on the record tonight to strengthen the statutory guidance to include speech and language therapy, and confirm that this will be part of the domestic abuse strategy. My noble friend Lord Ramsbotham has led on a very important issue, and brought a previously overlooked need to the fore. If we do not have that assurance, my noble friend will be forced to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, this amendment seeks to ensure that guidance includes information on the link between domestic abuse and speech, language and communication needs, the impact of witnessing domestic abuse on children’s speech, language and communication, and the services available to support victims of domestic abuse with speech, language and communication needs.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has been unwavering in bringing these important issues before the House. In answer to the noble Lord’s amendment in Committee, the Minister spoke about the extensive engagement undertaken on the statutory guidance, including a specific working group focusing on disability, including learning disabilities. While that is welcome, I did not hear any commitment to address the specific issues raised in this amendment—in particular how, when children witness domestic abuse, it can lead to communication difficulties and the support required by those with speech, language and communication needs to help them to express the impact that domestic abuse has had on them. Can the Minister address those concerns? We support the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
The speech, language and communication needs of victims of domestic abuse have to be properly addressed. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for bringing this issue to the Floor of the House, as he did in Committee. He is absolutely right to do so.
The noble Lord’s amendment is important. If we are to have effective domestic abuse support for disabled people, it must be barrier-free and truly accessible. As the noble Lord told us, the ability to communicate is a vital skill. Those with communication difficulties are particularly vulnerable, which is why we need to ensure that local authorities, the police and all other agencies are able to address and ensure that they have provisions in place to make sure that people can make their points effectively and be understood, having their concerns met and needs addressed.
Today and in our previous debate, my noble friend Lady Andrews made the case for providing that extra support and ensuring that it is properly addressed in the guidance. I endorse my noble friend’s call for the guidance to be explicit, and I hope that the Minister can be absolutely explicit on that. The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, drew our attention to the needs of disabled people, which can be multiple and complex, and how effective communication plays such an important part, including the ability to communicate to public authorities. As the noble Lord said, just think if we could not communicate—how could we get anything done? It is not right that a victim of abuse is not listened to or heard.
My noble friend Lord Mann made very important points from his experience as a Member of Parliament for Bassetlaw of failings of schools and the social services in north Notts. I am sure that those failures are going to take place all over the country, and that is just one example. That is why we need to ensure that those issues are addressed. My noble friend Lady Whitaker drew attention to the particular risk that children find themselves in.
I hope that the Minister can address those issues; I am sure that he will be very aware of the potential of a vote on this amendment. He will not want to tempt the noble Lord to do that.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short but powerful debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said in opening it, noble Lords bring a wealth of experience to the scrutiny of Bills and, in a short number of contributions, they have done that tonight—whether it is the noble Lord himself through his work as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Speech and Language Difficulties, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, in her role as chairman of the National Mental Capacity Forum or my noble friend Lord Shinkwin and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, who speak from first-hand experience. Then there is the noble Lord, Lord Mann, with his constituency experience, and others. The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, reminded us that she speaks as a stammerer, just like the new President of the United States of America—and, as it is his birthday today, like my uncle, who is also a stammerer. I hope that people watching this debate will be inspired by their examples as well as by the content of what they have said.
As noble Lords have all rightly said, people with speech, language and communication needs can be especially at risk of harm and, of course, domestic abuse, as well as facing additional barriers in accessing services. As we said in Committee, we know that this is not a niche issue, nor should it be treated as such, especially in the context of domestic abuse, so we are grateful for the opportunity to continue the debate today.
In July 2020, the Government published the draft statutory guidance that will accompany the Bill, which made specific reference to special educational needs and disabilities. The Government have engaged widely on this already, including through a specific working group focusing on disability, deafness, and learning disabilities. I am pleased to say that, thanks to that engagement and the further engagement that we have had, including that which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has had directly with officials involved in drafting, we will revise the guidance to make further express reference to speech, language and communication needs, in relation to not just those with special educational needs but the links between domestic abuse and those with communication needs, specifically children and young people. I am pleased to say that we will cover the points on which noble Lords have rightly pressed me again this evening.
We recognise the impact that domestic abuse can have on the development of children’s speech and communication. We know that children can express themselves in a variety of ways, and it is important, as noble Lords have said, that we are all mindful of that —especially in the context of domestic abuse. For instance, children may display behaviour that might seem aggressive to mainstream professionals when, really, their communication needs are not being tailored appropriately. We are very clear that it is important that we give children and young people the right support as and when they need it because of their vulnerabilities. That is why the guidance issued under Clause 73 includes specific sections on children and how best to support what we know can be their unique needs.
We know that domestic abuse has a devastating impact on all its victims, and that recognising the needs of individual victims is essential, which is why the statutory guidance goes into this particular detail. The guidance also details how perpetrators can exploit these communication needs and requirements. Whether it is through a perpetrator insisting that they are the only person to interpret, preventing access to an external interpreter or removing the victim’s hearing aids, these are horrific tactics, which we know are used to perpetuate abuse, and they will be covered in the guidance.
The Government continue to prioritise improving speech and language outcomes, based on early identification and targeted support. I have previously referred to Public Health England’s excellent guidance, drafted in conjunction with the Department for Education. The guidance outlines the system-wide approach for commissioning early years support on speech, language and communication services. Additionally, speech, language and communication services for children and young people are covered by joint commissioning arrangements set out in the special educational needs and disabilities code of practice. Education, health services, local authorities and youth offending teams can come together to assess needs and agree a local offer. Joint commissioning gives agencies the opportunity to consider the wider factors and interdependencies, such as domestic abuse, and design services accordingly.
In conclusion, we recognise that speech, language and communication needs are extremely important, which is why they will be expressly covered in guidance. There is a wealth of guidance already available, and we intend to augment this with the statutory guidance to be issued under Clause 73. That guidance will be subject to formal consultation following Royal Assent, and I shall ensure that the all-party group which the noble Lord jointly chairs has an opportunity to take part in that process. The forthcoming domestic abuse strategy will afford a further opportunity for us to ensure that we are adopting a whole-system approach when tackling this crime and these unique needs.
I hope that in the light of my reassurances and with my renewed thanks for his and other noble Lords’ engagement on this important issue, the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his considered response, particularly his assurance that the Government will be revising the guidance. I also thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment, indicating as they did so their expertise in, and knowledge of, the issue. Ministers and officials are clearly seized of the need to satisfy speech, language and communication needs and, from that point of view, to include them in the statutory guidance to be issued to all local authorities. In that spirit, and in the hope that Ministers and officials will also study what has been said in this debate and earlier ones, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the proposed new Clause in the name of Baroness Lister of Burtersett that amends section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the proposed new Clause in the name of Baroness Morgan of Cotes, which extends the offence under section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 to threats to disclose private sexual photographs and films.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the proposed new Clause in the name of Baroness Newlove that provides for an offence of strangulation or suffocation.
“(1A) The appropriate national authority may by regulations make provision that is consequential on any provision made by or under section (Prohibition on charging for the provision of medical evidence of domestic abuse).(1B) In subsection (1A) “the appropriate national authority” means—(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State;(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the proposed amendment in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar which prevents certain health care professionals who either assess a patient under an NHS contract, or provide services wholly or mainly under an NHS contract, from charging victims of domestic abuse for the provision of evidence of their injuries.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 59, line 25.
“(3) The power of the Welsh Ministers to make regulations under this section may, in particular, be exercised by amending, repealing, revoking or otherwise modifying any provision made by or under primary legislation passed or made before, or in the same session of Parliament as, this Act.(4) In subsection (3) “primary legislation” means—(a) an Act of Parliament;(b) a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales or an Act of Senedd Cymru.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 59, line 25.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the proposed new Clause in the name of Baroness Lister of Burtersett that amends section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the proposed new Clause in the name of Baroness Morgan of Cotes, which extends the offence under section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 to threats to disclose private sexual photographs and films.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the proposed new Clause in the name of Baroness Newlove that provides for an offence of strangulation or suffocation.
“(1A) The appropriate national authority may by regulations make such transitional or saving provision as the authority considers appropriate in connection with the coming into force of section (Prohibition on charging for the provision of medical evidence of domestic abuse).(1B) In subsection (1A) “the appropriate national authority” means— (a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State;(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the proposed amendment in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar which prevents certain health care professionals who either assess a patient under an NHS contract, or provide services wholly or mainly under an NHS contract, from charging victims of domestic abuse for the provision of evidence of their injuries.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 59, line 37.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the proposed amendment in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar which prevents certain health care professionals who either assess a patient under an NHS contract, or provide services wholly or mainly under an NHS contract, from charging victims of domestic abuse for the provision of evidence of their injuries.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the proposed new Clause in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford imposing a duty to report on domestic abuse services in England, and provides that regulations made by the Secretary of State to extend the 12-month period for making the report are not subject to Parliamentary procedure.
“( ) regulations of the Secretary of State under section (Prohibition on charging for the provision of medical evidence of domestic abuse)(6), or”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for regulations under subsection (6) of the proposed new Clause in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, which prevents certain health care professionals who either assess a patient under an NHS contract, or provide services wholly or mainly under an NHS contract, from charging victims of domestic abuse for the provision of evidence of their injuries, to be subject to the draft affirmative procedure.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendments at page 59, lines 25 and 29.
“(7) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Welsh Ministers under this Act is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution made by Senedd Cymru, unless the instrument—(a) is required by subsection (8) or any other enactment to be laid before, and approved by a resolution of, Senedd Cymru, or(b) contains only regulations under section 75.(8) A statutory instrument that contains (with or without other provisions)—(a) regulations of the Welsh Ministers under section (Prohibition on charging for the provision of medical evidence of domestic abuse)(6), or (b) regulations of the Welsh Ministers under section 74 that amend or repeal primary legislation (within the meaning of section 74(4)),may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, Senedd Cymru.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the proposed amendment in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar which prevents certain health care professionals who either assess a patient under an NHS contract, or provide services wholly or mainly under an NHS contract, from charging victims of domestic abuse for the provision of evidence of their injuries.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the proposed new Schedule in the name of Baroness Newlove relating to the proposed new offence of strangulation or suffocation.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the proposed new Schedule in the name of Baroness Newlove relating to the proposed new offence of strangulation or suffocation.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the proposed new clause in the name of Baroness Morgan of Cotes, which extends the offence under section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 to threats to disclose private sexual photographs and films, to come into force two months after Royal Assent.
“( ) Section (Prohibition on charging for the provision of medical evidence of domestic abuse) comes into force on 1 October 2021.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the proposed new Clause in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, which prevents certain health care professionals who either assess a patient under an NHS contract, or provide services wholly or mainly under an NHS contract, from charging victims of domestic abuse for the provision of evidence of their injuries, to come into force on 1 October 2021.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the proposed new Clause in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, which makes further provision about orders under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the proposed new Clause in the name of Baroness Morgan of Cotes, which extends the offence under section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 to threats to disclose private sexual photographs and films.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the proposed new Clause in the name of Baroness Newlove that provides for an offence of strangulation or suffocation.
Integrated Review
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I start with my usual caveat about what a shame it is we are not hearing the Statement in full. It might be a relief to the Leader, but it would be good to hear Statements as important as prime ministerial ones repeated.
Two significant developments since the last Statement on the integrated review provide a new optimism: first, the success of vaccines against Covid-19; and secondly, the election of the new US President. President Biden’s recent speech on America’s place in the world highlighted that his Administration are different in style, values and substance from that of his predecessor. In redefining how the US views its place in the world, he said:
“we must start with diplomacy rooted in America’s most cherished democratic values: defending freedom, championing opportunity, upholding universal rights, respecting the rule of law, and treating every person with dignity.”
At a time when challenges have never seemed so complex or diverse, the power of this change of approach should not be underestimated. Now, our Prime Minister has to decide how the UK will meet those same challenges.
We need the integrated review to succeed to keep our citizens safe and to secure Britain as a moral force for good in the world. But it is against a backdrop whereby the two previous reviews, as well as recent actions taken by the Government, have weakened the foundations. There has been an £8 billion cut to the defence budget and a reduction of 45,000 in Armed Forces personnel. Our reputation as a defender of the rule of law has been damaged by the Internal Market Bill, and now, there is the decision to break the legal commitment on international aid. After an “era of retreat,” as Boris Johnson previously described the last 10 years of Conservative Governments, this review cannot repeat the mistakes of the lost decade for Britain’s foreign and security policy.
The number one priority for any Government is national security, and security has to begin at home, as we have seen during the pandemic. That is why announcements of a national resilience strategy, a counterterrorism operations centre and greater partnership with business are all encouraging.
The threats to our national security are proliferating and the traditional certainties are less stable; while we welcome that the review recognises the threats of space and cyber, the conventional risks have not gone away. Our commitment to NATO must be unshakable, our support for nuclear deterrence must be non-negotiable and our obligations to international law, human rights, multilateral treaties and organisations must be enshrined in policy and practice.
Today’s review accepts that the events of March 2018 in Salisbury indicate that the threat from Russia remains acute. Yet the recommendations of the Russia review 18 months ago remain just that—recommendations. I hope the Leader can today assure us that the legislation to counter state threats will address this and the Government will now set about implementing the outstanding recommendations with some sense of urgency.
Ambiguity in relation to China must also be addressed. Given the importance of security to our national infrastructure, can the Leader explain why the Government have spent years encouraging Chinese Government-backed companies to invest in sensitive areas such as nuclear power and 5G?
Our ambition must be to enhance Britain’s reputation abroad with a foreign policy that appreciates that our values and the national interest are indivisible. We need to build deeper political and economic ties with new and emerging powers, including, as referenced in the review, within the Asia-Pacific. But we also need the anchor of strong, effective relationships with Europe and the US and a defined role in the global institutions we helped to establish. This means providing leadership at NATO to counter threats and aggression, including from Russia. It means being a competent and coherent voice at the G7, leading the global economic recovery—as we did in 2008 with Gordon Brown—and using our position on the UN Security Council to call out human rights violations, even if it is inconvenient.
To realise those ambitions, we have to be consistent and we have to earn trust. It is not enough to refer to Yemen as the worst humanitarian situation in the world, and then continue to sell arms that can be used in the conflict there. It is not enough to host COP 26 if plans to open a new coal mine are then pushed through. It is not enough to talk about a value-driven trade policy, but then reject human rights protections in the Trade Bill.
The decision to cut £5 billion from foreign aid and abandon our commitment to 0.7% of GNI undermines that ambition. The Government say that cut is temporary, but it was this Government who enshrined that commitment in legislation. Why do that if, at the first challenge, that commitment is just abandoned? When will Parliament be able to vote on this? Because the Government need to find a way to make their own actions lawful. On a not unrelated matter, if the Government are serious about our role as a soft power superpower, as the review suggests, surely they could not even contemplate ending funding for VSO. I hope the noble Baroness will address these issues.
I also raise a specific matter about the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, which the review talks up as expanding our science and technology base for strategic advantage. The Government’s press release says that the Business Secretary will have powers for
“directing the agency to cease collaboration with certain hostile actors”.
I am genuinely puzzled about this. Why would the agency be collaborating with hostile powers in the first place? Perhaps the Minister will shed some light on what this actually means.
Despite this being billed as the “strategic defence review”, there are many questions that will have to be addressed in the defence Command Paper. It has been reported that the Army will be cut by 10,000 personnel and armoured vehicles scrapped. If the strategy wants to
“deploy more of our Armed Forces overseas more often and for longer periods of time”,
how will these cuts assist in achieving that?
While our support for the nuclear deterrent is non-negotiable, serious questions remain about the hike in warhead numbers, which breaks the commitments of successive Governments, both Labour and Conservative. Since the Prime Minister was unable to address this when he was asked in the other place, can the noble Baroness explain something about the strategic purpose of this decision? In his Statement, Mr Johnson describes the US as “our closest ally” and “a uniquely close partner”. Given that President Biden has expressed a different approach, was this decision discussed with the US?
In the past year, we have all witnessed the resilience of the British public, particularly but not exclusively those working in our health and care services. The pandemic was a threat that few expected and that, for a whole host of reasons, we were inadequately prepared for. It has brought home how, in future, our preparation against threats and risk has to cover many bases. To effectively prepare for such risks, it is not a question of using headline-friendly rhetoric, getting through the latest crisis or finding warm words for each occasion; it is about careful, strategic planning, listening to wise counsel, diplomacy based on principles and values and delivering the resources that our military, our agencies and our public services need. The test of that is not for today, but it will be judged in the months and years ahead.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, the integrated review is an extremely sobering document. In part, this is because of the new and changing security threats it outlines, but it is also because the Government’s policy is riddled with flaws and inconsistencies, which means that it does not offer a credible basis for achieving its aims. These are, as the Prime Minister, said,
“to make the United Kingdom stronger, safer and more prosperous, while standing up for our values.”
Will the review do so? Take its central strategic tenet. According to the Statement:
“Our approach will place diplomacy first.”
For a nation of our size, military capabilities and history, this is a very sensible priority. But what have the Government done to demonstrate that they understand what such an approach requires?
The first requirement is that the UK should be a trusted partner. Here, the Government’s track record is dire. They have twice in the past year broken their pledges under the EU withdrawal Act and Irish protocol and find themselves being taken to court by our most important trading and security partner for breaking the law. Other countries are watching and asking how much our word is now really worth.
The Government cannot be trusted either on their legal commitments to development assistance. They have cut development aid, and with it our ability to wield soft power, at a time when such assistance was never more needed. The Prime Minister says that the cut will be restored when the fiscal situation allows. Is it not the truth, however, that the Government used the pandemic as a convenient pretext to make the cut and have no intention whatsoever of reversing it any time soon?
Another aspect of wielding soft power is to stand up for the values that we wish to promulgate. These include the promotion of human rights. Yet the Government make it pretty clear in the document that trade will trump human rights, not least in our dealings with China. The Foreign Secretary admitted as much yesterday, saying that the UK would be willing to strike trade deals with countries that violate international standards and human rights. Will the Minister tell us whether that is really the Government’s position? If so, what does their alleged commitment to human rights actually amount to?
Throughout the review, the Government largely airbrush out the importance to the UK in every possible respect of the EU. They fail to admit that Brexit will make us poorer, less secure and less influential internationally. Instead, they blandly state that,
“we will enjoy constructive and productive relationships with our neighbours in the European Union.”
I wonder if anybody has told the noble Lord, Lord Frost.
When it comes to military spending, the additional £16 billion promised last autumn does not even fill the black hole in the procurement budget. Our Armed Forces will remain short of armed vehicles, fighter planes, submarines and frigates. Yet the Prime Minister is proposing a tilt to the Indo-Pacific that does not just involve diplomacy and trade but the sending of an aircraft carrier, wholly dependent on US escorts and planes, to the South China Sea. This is but one example of our being increasingly dependent on the United States. It is certainly not the action of a sovereign global power.
The one area where the review sets out a wholly new commitment is the proposed increase in nuclear warheads to 260, some 45% more than the number planned for the mid-2020s by the coalition Government. The review says that this is necessary,
“in recognition of the evolving security environment”.
What on earth does that mean? The review states that the Government might consider using nuclear weapons against chemical or biological attacks or cyberattacks, even by non-nuclear states. This is a massive expansion of the potential role of nuclear weapons and appears to be in breach of our obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. How can the Government possibly justify such a reckless, dangerous and potentially illegal policy shift?
When it comes to trade, the review repeats the Government’s commitment to have a trade agreement in place to cover 80% of our trade by 2022. Surely, this is completely unrealistic. Our combined trade with the US, India and China comes to more than 20%, and there is no chance of reaching a trade agreement with any of them in the foreseeable future. Why, then, is the completely unachievable 80% target repeated? It is simply pie in the sky.
The document is suffused with such fanciful and misleading assertions. To pick one from many: it trumpets the support the Government have given to our creative and cultural sectors, yet their failure to maintain the ability of our creative and cultural sectors to perform in the EU is decimating them. Try telling a young musician, facing the cancellation of all her European work, to pivot to the east. It would be a joke if it were not so serious.
This review demonstrates the Prime Minister’s trademark policy of trying to have your cake and eating it. It avoids hard choices, particularly in relation to China, instead of making them. By pivoting away from Europe, it ignores both history and the basic rule that security, defence and foreign policy should start, not finish, with your neighbours. It is a truly depressing document from a truly depressing Government.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
I was going to thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments, but I might just thank the noble Baroness in the light of the noble Lord’s comments. However, I will try to address some of the criticisms that he somewhat unfairly levels at this document.
The noble Baroness began her comments on the approach of the new Administration. We believe this review aligns well with the US vision, highlighting the need to build back better and the importance of science and technology, climate change, health resilience and protecting our democracies. We look forward to working with them on all of those. She also asked about the counter state threats legislation, which I can confirm will provide the security services and law enforcement agencies with the necessary tools to tackle evolving state threats. It will create new offences, tools and powers to criminalise other harmful activity conducted by and on behalf of states.
Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness talked about China. As this document sets out, we believe there is scope for positive and constructive engagement with China, for instance on things such as trade co-operation and tackling climate change. However, we are very clear-sighted about the challenges. To reassure the noble Baroness, we will always protect our vital interests, including sensitive infrastructure, and will not accept investment that compromises our national security.
The noble Lord asked about trade and human rights. I say categorically that we are clear that trade does not come at the expense of human rights. Our experience is that having strong economic relationships with partners enables us to have open discussions with them on a range of issues, including human rights, and we most certainly do so. I remind the noble Lord that under our global human rights sanctions regime we have designated 68 individuals and three entities from nine countries—including Russia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Venezuela and Ukraine—around the world for a variety of human rights abuses or violations. We will continue to take these issues extremely seriously.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness rightly spoke about our leadership on the global stage. This will be a year for our leadership that will set the tone for our international engagement for the decade ahead, in our presidency of the G7, which we have also invited the leaders of Australia, South Korea and India to attend, the Global Partnership for Education and COP 26 in Glasgow in November. I say to the noble Lord that we will continue to have a strong, positive relationship with our European friends and partners. That will continue to be a priority for us.
Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness spoke about international development spending. The document clearly states that we are committed to returning to spending 0.5% of GNI on ODA as soon as the economic situation allows—
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
Sorry, 0.7%— I apologise.
We are acting compatibly with the International Development Act and will set out more detail on steps in due course. I remind the House that we remain a world-leading aid donor and will spend more than £10 billion this year to address poverty, tackle climate change, fight Covid and improve global health. This year, we will continue to be the second-most generous ODA-spending country in the G7 as a percentage of our national income.
The noble Baroness asked about the VSO. I am afraid that all I can say is that at this point no decisions have yet been made on the volunteering for development grant. She also asked about the advanced research and invention agency, which will be operational from 2022. We will invest at least £800 million to set up this body, which will focus on high-risk, high-reward research and have significant freedom to experiment with funding models. Its structure and operating model will empower scientists to make funding decisions and start and stop projects quickly. Of course, as the legislation comes through this House, there will be plenty of opportunity to discuss some of the issues she raised on it.
Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness talked about defence spending. We are increasing our defence spending by over £24 billion over the next four years, which is £16.5 billion more than our manifesto commitment. We are certainly investing in defence. There will be no Armed Forces redundancies during any restructuring, but the Army will be transformed to meet the threats of the coming decade. Our soldiers will have some of the best equipment in the world, including new vehicles, drones, electronic warfare and cyberspace capabilities. Next week, I think on Monday, the Secretary of State for Defence will set out those plans and your Lordships’ House will have the chance to look at them when they are published.
Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord talked about nuclear weapons. As they say, the review details our intent to increase the limit of our overall nuclear weapons stockpile to no more than 260 warheads. This is a ceiling, not a target, and it is not our current stockpile number; we will continue to keep this under review. We remain fully compliant with the non-proliferation treaty and absolutely committed to the collective long-term goal of a world without nuclear weapons. However, in the review, we detailed some of the possible areas that might affect us in future—notably, for instance, the potential for the development of technologies that could have a comparable impact to weapons of mass destruction.
Finally, the noble Lord asked about trade and the figure of 80%. As he rightly said, we aim to secure agreements with countries accounting for 80% of the UK’s total trade within three years. So far, we have secured trade agreements with countries worth 67% of total UK trade in 2019 and, in addition to the agreement that we signed with the EU, we have secured FTAs with 66 non-EU countries. We have also applied for accession to the CPTPP.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the 20 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, the level of ambition in this review is commendable. Take, for example, the desire for the UK to be a global superpower in science and technology by 2030. The biggest challenge will be the divide between the public and private sectors. Will we follow the example of Israel, which already punches above its weight in this area, and take a whole-of-society approach? How will we bridge that divide when it comes to sharing skills and investment?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I thank my noble friend. As he rightly states, we aim to secure our status as a science and technology superpower by 2030. As I mentioned, the defence Command Paper, which will be published on Monday, and the subsequent defence and security industrial strategy will set out more details on exactly the issues that he raises, including government, defence, the security industry, the public and private sectors, and investment. This will be very much at the forefront of our mind as we take it forward in the coming months.
Lord Ricketts (CB) [V]
My Lords, having overseen the 2010 review as the then National Security Adviser, I know how much work goes into a document such as this. I congratulate the team on it.
A good strategy should set out both goals and priorities. This one has plenty of ambitious goals in all directions, such as taking on new tasks in the Indo-Pacific, becoming a science and technology superpower, leading on climate, reshaping the international system and much else. What I do not see are any clear choices among all these priorities. Indeed, I see that the review dropped the prioritised list of national security risks, which we introduced in 2010. Can the Minister tell us what the UK will be doing less of to free up the people and money for these new endeavours?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I can certainly say—I am sure that the noble Lord, with his experience, recognises this—that we believe that this review brings together national security and international policy in a way that previous reviews have not, and establishes a clearer connection between our domestic priorities and international objectives. These are some of the review’s key conclusions: we must do more to sustain our “strategic advantage” in science and technology, as has already been mentioned; we must take a more active role in
“shaping the open international order of the future”;
we must strengthen our security and defence; and we must bolster our resilience. Those will be the key priorities shaping the work that we take forward in the coming decades.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to see that the broad scope of the review covers a wide range of vital areas. However, given that defence and security remain the core focus of this review, can the Minister say more about how the review relates to Her Majesty’s Government’s commitment to the UN sustainable development goals, identified in the review as a principal continuity? This is of special concern given that the SDGs offer a values framework of mutual and practical support, which is part of good international relations. We on this Bench welcome the review’s specific commitment to upholding freedom of religion or belief. It is from this perspective that I ask my question, because of the wide-scale commitment to sustainable development among people of faith.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for his question. Indeed, he will see within the review that part of the definition or explanation we include of what being “a force for good” means—which is obviously one of the themes running through this—is remaining a world-leading international development donor and supporting the sustainable development goals. Certainly, as I have already mentioned, we are absolutely committed to continuing our work in these areas. In fact, within the development space, we will also sharpen our focus on seven key priorities, including climate change and biodiversity, Covid and global health security, girls’ education, science and research, open societies and conflict resolution, and humanitarian preparedness and response, so we will continue to be a leading player in this very important field.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it would be nice to welcome the integrated review, because much of it is sensible, thought through and comprehensive. But if it is to be more than just fine sentiments and big, bold ambitions, we have to ask the question: where is the beef? Where are the priorities? For example, when the Prime Minister says, “diplomacy first”, does that mean that the relentless year-on-year cutting of the diplomacy budget will be reversed? Secondly, if we are to champion the rule of law, how will that sit with breaking our own development law and using the overseas operations Bill to break international humanitarian law?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
As I said, the review makes quite clear that we are committed to spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA as soon as the economic situation allows, and we believe that we are acting compatibly with the International Development Act. We believe that this review will once again put us at the forefront of global leadership in a whole array of areas. We will look forward to working with partners in Europe, around the globe and, obviously, in the Indo-Pacific region, which we have also pointed out, in order to advance open and fair democracies and societies.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
My Lords, the review puts science and technology front and centre. How does the noble Baroness square that with Universities UK stating today that the Government have failed to provide more than £1 billion for its membership of the Horizon programme? The UK’s national research funding agency—UKRI—is being forced to make cuts of £125 million because of ODA cuts. Is she aware that it was ODA money that helped to fund the Oxford Jenner Institute vaccine work?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
We certainly have an incredibly strong record on science and technology. We are ranked fourth in the Global Innovation Index, and we will invest £14.6 billion in R&D across government in 2021-22. We have reached agreement to take part in Horizon Europe, which is an excellent outcome. We are currently working through the details of the costs and where they fall, but we have always been clear that Horizon funding complements domestic programmes and have made a public commitment that there will be no loss of investment in R&D in the UK on leaving the EU.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on an integrated review that brings together all the assets that this country has and uses them to give us a direction of where we should be going in the future. But does my noble friend not share my concern that, at the same time as increasing the defence budget, we are actually reducing the number of servicemen? This might have been something of an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts. The British Army and our Armed Forces have been involved in low-intensity warfare in recent active service conflicts, and it seems to me that we are highly likely to have more of these in the future. Is it right to reduce the number of men who might be involved in this?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
As I say, I think more details will be announced on Monday. As the review says, we believe that we need to stop thinking about the strength of the Army purely in numbers of soldiers and focus on how it is equipped and what we want it to do. For instance, we believe that, with this additional investment, the Army will be transformed to meet the threats of the coming decade. We will ensure that our soldiers have the best equipment in the world, including new vehicles, drones and cyberspace capabilities. As I mentioned earlier, and would just like to reiterate, there will be no Armed Forces redundancies as part of any restructuring. We are incredibly grateful for the fantastic work our Armed Forces do, and we want to provide them with effective kit and tools so that they can undertake their important work around the globe on our behalf.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the sophistication of the review document, much of which I thought was excellent. However, the real challenge is in translating that document into an effective strategy, particularly one that is so fundamentally reliant on allies and alliances. Therefore, from a defence perspective, I ask the Minister: to what extent has the strategic bet on technology, digitally enabled capability, autonomous systems and novel nuclear options been harmonised with NATO deterrence doctrine and with the force structure development of close allies, or is it currently a wholly national initiative?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
Obviously as the strategy and the way we work roll out, we will be working with allies. But in the development of this review there was thorough engagement with our allies and partners abroad, and also with civil organisations and businesses. We facilitated 11 round-table discussions and workshops, and had input from more than 100 external experts from 23 countries. The call for evidence which helped to inform the review received more than 450 submissions, so we are very conscious about our relationships with our allies. We have talked to them as we have been developing the review, and we will of course continue to work with them in order to deliver the ambitions we set out within it.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, CASD ensures our nation’s security and deters aggression, every hour of every day, and I am pleased that we will reverse the coalition Government’s decision and will no longer disclose deployed warhead and missile numbers. The 45% increase in operational stockpiles is more problematic, and I would love to know what has made that necessary. More worrying still, it would seem that we intend to use Trident as a war-fighting weapon, yet until recently the use of nuclear weapons for war-fighting, as distinct from deterrence and retaliation, was considered deranged. Why are we doing it?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
As I said, we remain fully compliant with the non-proliferation treaty and deeply committed to our collective goal of a world without nuclear weapons. But we also remain committed to maintaining the minimum destructive power needed to guarantee that the UK’s nuclear deterrent remains credible and effective against the full range of state nuclear threats from any direction.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
My Lords, when the defence expenditure increase was announced, I welcomed it from these Benches. It never occurred to me that the increase in defence expenditure was in order to have more nuclear warheads. The noble Lord, Lord West, has already pointed out that this is problematic. Can the noble Baroness explain to the House how it would be in line with Article VI of the non-proliferation treaty? Surely by increasing our nuclear holdings we are not doing anything to help nuclear disarmament.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
As I said, the review details our intent to increase the limit of our overall nuclear weapons stockpile. It is a ceiling, not a target. As I have also said, we remain fully compliant with the non-proliferation treaty.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, there is much to welcome in this review, and I welcome it. Following my noble friend Lord Hamilton, I shall home in on one specific issue. The Prime Minister specifically said yesterday that
“by strengthening our armed forces, we will extend British influence”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/3/21; col. 162.]
One small, if you like, example of that influence is the number of overseas students who come to Sandhurst and other staff colleges. If we diminish the size of the Army and are no longer seen as a viable and respected force around the world, they will no longer wish to come, and that will diminish our influence. Will my noble friend tell the Prime Minister that it is not from the “Ladybird book of defence”, as the Secretary of State for Defence suggested in the Commons on Monday, to say that we will not be taken seriously by our allies or our adversaries if we shrink the size of the Army?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
As I have said, and as my noble friend knows, we are increasing defence spending and modernising our Armed Forces to help us achieve the full range of our security and prosperity goals. I believe our Armed Forces have an excellent reputation globally, and that will continue. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence will be setting out our plans in more detail on Monday, which I hope will reassure my noble friend about our intentions.
Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)
The integrated review identifies Russia as the country that poses the most immediate threat to the United Kingdom. Fair enough—from the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko to the poisoning of Dawn Sturgess, the UK has experience of Putin’s Russia. Nevertheless, can the noble Baroness confirm that Her Majesty’s Government are open to building a constructive working relationship with Moscow based on mutual respect? From dealing with climate change to the business of the Security Council, we need to work together.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
The noble Lord has much recent experience of this, so I bow to his knowledge and expertise. He will know, but I can say, that we maintain functional channels of engagement with the Russian Government to raise concerns and discuss global challenges. As he says, we are using our COP 26 presidency to engage Russia on climate change and clean energy. As fellow P5 members, we continue to engage on international peace and security, so there are open channels. But, as he will know, at the same time we are committed to maintaining a robust response to malign activity by Russia. We also use these channels to make clear that there can be no normalisation of the relationship until Russia stops destabilising behaviour, both towards us and our allies.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
I welcome this paper, in the sense that we desperately need a hard-headed, realistic debate about our national strategy post Brexit. I ask about the “tilt to the Indo-Pacific”; how serious a military and security commitment is envisaged? Is this seen as a reversal of the decision that the Labour Government famously took in 1968 to withdraw east of Suez? Are the main security challenges that we face not still in Europe’s neighbourhood—Russia, terrorism, chaos in north Africa, the possibility of further troubles in the Balkans and all the rest? Is that not the area on which we should concentrate? Do we not have to accept that we are a strong but medium-sized European power and that, if we try to do too much, we risk a problem of overstretch, which will put our Armed Forces in an impossible position?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
As I am sure the noble Lord knows, we already have a significant presence in the Indo-Pacific and we will invest more deeply in our relationships with key partners, which includes seeking ASEAN dialogue partner status and, as I mentioned, applying to join the CPTPP. But I reassure him that this is not at the expense of our close relationship with our European allies, which remains critical. One example of further engagement with the Indo-Pacific region is that, later this year, HMS “Queen Elizabeth” will lead a British and allied task group on our most ambitious deployment for two decades, which will visit the Mediterranean, Middle East and Indo-Pacific.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, Section 2(4) of the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015 states that the Government
“must … describe any steps that the Secretary of State has taken to ensure that the 0.7% target will be met”
in any subsequent year, if it was met in the previous year. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, told me that
“we are looking at legislation to ensure that we fulfil those obligations to Parliament.”—[Official Report, 2/12/20; col. 755.]
There has been no legislation, so does that mean that the Government are legally committed to meeting 0.7% in 2022, as the Secretary of State has indicated?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
As I have said, and am sure the noble Lord knows, the document makes clear that we intend to return to 0.7% spending. We are acting compatibly with the Act, which explicitly envisages circumstances where the target might not be met. As I said in my first answers, we will set out more details on next steps in due course.
Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I look forward to a full debate in your Lordships’ House on the integrated review but, in the meantime, the Indo-Pacific tilt is realistic only if proper resources are allocated to it. A number of noble Lords have made the point about resources. How does that square with our existing commitments to NATO? Finally, is increasing the UK’s nuclear deterrent while reducing the size of the Army the right set of priorities?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
NATO certainly remains the cornerstone of our defence and we are exceeding our NATO spending commitments, now at 2.2% of GDP. That cements our position as the largest defence spender in Europe and the second largest in NATO. I have already answered several questions on nuclear. As I say, we take our commitments to NATO extremely seriously. It is the cornerstone of our defence.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, has withdrawn. I call our final question from the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie.
Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the review at long last. Despite MPs raising concerns about Beijing—its actions in Hong Kong and those against the Uighurs—the Prime Minister warned against a new cold war in China. It has emerged that Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab told officials that the UK would strike trade deals with countries, even if they did not meet our standards on human rights. Also, what is meant by “girls’ education”?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I hope that I made clear in a previous answer that trade does not come at the expense of human rights and that we stand up and speak on human rights, as we have done with China over the issues that the noble Baroness raises. As for girls’ education, we are championing two global targets—40 million more girls in school and one-third more girls reading by the age of 10 in lower middle-income countries by 2025. We intend to use our G7 presidency this year to rally the international community to support those global goals. I am sure that the noble Baroness knows that we are proud to be the largest bilateral donor to the two biggest global education funds—the Global Partnership for Education and Education Cannot Wait.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, we have completed all the Back-Bench questions. We shall take just one minute to rearrange the seating and then we will carry straight on with the next Report stage.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to Report on the Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill. I will call Members to speak in the order listed. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are discouraged. Any Member wishing to ask any question must email the clerk. The groupings are binding. A participant who wishes to press an amendment other than the lead amendment in a group to a Division must give notice in the debate or by emailing the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the question is put, they must make that clear when speaking on the group. We will now begin.
Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill
Wednesday 17th March 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill 2019-21 View all Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 131-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (12 Mar 2021)
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 2, which is in the same group. This follows what I thought was an interesting and useful discussion in Committee on the meaning of the words “wholly or mainly” when it came to defining whether a hereditament qualified for the zero rating under business rates as a public lavatory. In Committee I probed whether “mainly” was about the area it covered, perhaps the floor area, the value or the use. The Minister made it very clear that it was about the use; I have been reading what he said in Committee and that is very clear indeed. I will come back to that because Amendment 1 is the more important of these two amendments.
Amendment 2 is about the percentage use of the hereditament that qualifies for non-payment of any business rates. In Committee the Minister made it clear that the words “wholly or mainly” were put in because, he said, they are commonly used words in this kind of legislation, particularly in relation to charities. He referred to case law and to local authorities having some flexibility in whether they decide it is a public hereditament. He said:
“The use of ‘mainly’ means that an authority may, for example, look at the floor area of a building and see that less than 50% is being used directly as a public lavatory, but it may still feel that it meets the criteria … because the remaining area is used as storage or for other matters of little consequence.”—[Official Report, 24/2/21; col. 852.]
The useful discussion that we had there again put the emphasis upon the use of the hereditament. The Minister went on to refer to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and its reference to charities.
The interesting thing is that it is not entirely clear that 50% is absolutely clear and written into the legislation. The Minister kept saying that he did not want greater burdens to be put on local authorities and did not want them to spend more time on this, yet there seems to be some disagreement, in the context of business rates relating to use for charitable purposes, about whether the proportion of the use that is taking place has to be 50% or more. The Charity Tax Group says in its briefing:
“In order to benefit from the mandatory exemption from business rates it is important to understand the meaning of ‘wholly or mainly used for charitable purposes’. Case law suggests that ‘mainly’ probably means ‘more than half’; but there is a certain amount of ambiguity about this and the interpretation may vary from local authority to local authority”
which is unsatisfactory.
“It is sometimes argued that ‘mainly’ in fact means more than 75 per cent. Charities may have to try to negotiate this with their local authority.”
I am no expert on this area and I do not know how much of that goes on, but it seems sensible that if “mainly” means 50% or more that ought to be written into the Bill.
Amendment 1 would put into the legislation the exact words in the charitable legislation and the exact words that the Minister said in Committee referred to this legislation. I looked it up. Section 45A(2)(b) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 reads, for charitable relief,
“it appears that when next in use the hereditament will be wholly or mainly used for charitable purposes.”
There is then another paragraph that refers to community amateur sports clubs that has the same wording.
I am therefore trying, in an attempt to be really helpful to the Government, which I always attempt to do in legislation because if we get good legislation it is clear what it means and it is workable, to put into the Bill the wording in the Local Government Finance Act, which in Committee the Minister said applied to this Bill, which is to say that it is not, as this Bill states at the moment
“consists wholly or mainly of”,
but
“is used wholly or mainly”
for public lavatory purposes.
This is a very sensible little amendment. The Government ought to say, “Yes, of course. It’s sensible. Let’s put it in.” I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my interests in the register as a member of Kirklees Council and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I must say that I enjoyed the forensic probing that my noble friend Lord Greaves has undertaken. The words in the Bill that he is keen to clarify are ones that legislators frequently use. One wonders whether this is for the precise purpose of storing up business for lawyers when a challenge is made and the words then have to be to defined. My noble friend has done his research and quoted case law. The Minister’s response will be of interest to many of us because it will relate not only to this Bill but to others where charitable institutions are involved.
My noble friend also drew our attention to the difference in the use of “consists” and “used”. As he rightly pointed out, a “well used” facility may not get relief, whereas one that consists “wholly or mainly” may well do. Perhaps the Minister will be able to explain the reasoning behind the use of the words in the Bill that my noble friend is questioning. I look forward to what I am sure will be a most informative response.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for tabling the amendment. We debated issues around similar words in Committee. I thank him for raising these important matters again because we have to be clear. I was very struck by the points he made towards the end of his remarks about how important it is to get legislation right and to have good legislation. If we are not clear what we mean and mean what we say we will have all sorts of problems.
This gives the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, the opportunity to be very clear about what the Government mean. We need to be clear when we have words such as “mainly” and whether it is “more” or “less”. If we do not get these things clear then we get confusion. That leads to bad law and might potentially involve the courts. It potentially involves wasting more time in this House clarifying what we should have clarified in the first place.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is very good at picking these things up. I remember the debate that we had on rogue landlords, when he tabled an amendment on what was meant by the word “rogue”. It is important that we get these things right because then we will not need to clarify them. I thank the noble Lord for that. I look forward to the Minister’s response on the amendment.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my residential and commercial property interests as set out in the register. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for these two amendments which would change the way a public toilet is defined for the purposes of qualifying for the relief within this Bill.
As currently drafted, the 100% business rates relief will be available to any eligible hereditament which consists wholly or mainly of public lavatories. The first amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, would amend this so that eligibility is determined on the use of the hereditament.
The Government aim to make this relief as simple as possible to administer for local councils. When determining whether to award the relief, local authorities should be able to apply a degree of common sense and ask the essential question: “Does it look like a public lavatory”? Therefore, the Government favour an approach based on the physical characteristics of a hereditament, and “consists” achieves this better than “used” does.
While I appreciate the intention of the noble Lord in bringing forward this amendment, I hope that the House will agree that the extent to which a hereditament consists of public lavatories is less likely to be subject to change than the extent to which it is used as a public lavatory. As such, the approach chosen by the Government will result in fewer reassessments of awards of the relief being required.
Furthermore, the Government do not consider that the adoption of either option would result in a material difference to ratepayers. A hereditament consisting of a public toilet is unlikely to be used for any purpose other than that for which it has been designed. This contrasts with the business rates relief available to charities, which hinges on the use of the hereditament. The wording of the charity rate relief reflects that, for example, a hereditament consisting of a shop may be used for either charitable or non-charitable purposes. I do not consider there to be an equivalent issue in the case of public toilets.
I would like to reassure the noble Lord that it is not the Government’s intention for this relief to be available to toilets which are permanently closed and out of use. That is why the Bill amends only Section 43 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988—the section relating to occupied hereditaments. As such, the relief will not apply to unoccupied public lavatories.
The second amendment would define the meaning of the word “mainly” for the purposes of awarding the relief in the Bill as meaning “at least 50%”. As I have set out, it is councils and not central government which are responsible for determining eligibility for business rates relief and it is right that there is some element of discretion in this process. The use of the word “mainly”, which is used elsewhere in rates legislation where it remains undefined, achieves this.
It is right that local authorities have the ability to take a common-sense approach in marginal cases and to reflect on their own local knowledge, as well as any relevant case law and guidance, when making their decisions. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his proposals. However, on the basis of the points made I hope he will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for devoting some brainpower to this, actually thinking about it and coming up with sensible arguments. On balance, I do not agree with him. It seems that common sense would be to make it as simple as possible —his words—for local authorities, using exactly the same wording they are used to for other things.
I am particularly grateful for his use of the term “common sense”. He may find himself quoted from Hansard in future, when local authorities, as they sometimes do, make completely stupid decisions. It is now written down; it is laid down that common sense has to be used. I should declare my interest as a member of Pendle Borough Council.
I have tried to bring this into line—it will not destroy the Bill. The Minister said that the physical characteristics of public lavatories are very clear and do not change—but their uses do change. We once had a planning application for turning a public lavatory into an ice cream parlour, but I do not think that that succeeded. I think that, had they tried to sell ice cream from it, people would not have thought that it was still a public lavatory, but it is still very true.
I am grateful for what the Minister said; I am sorry that he will not accept my amendments, but I will not push them to a vote—they are not of that degree of importance. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 3. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 3
Baroness Randerson
“Review: impact of the Act on provision of public lavatories
(1) Within 12 months of this Act coming into force the Secretary of State must undertake and publish a review of its impact on the provision of public lavatories in England.(2) The review must make reference in particular to the impact of the Act on—(a) the number and distribution of public lavatories and whether this provision is adequate to meet the needs of communities,(b) the number of accessible toilets in England, including Changing Places toilets,(c) the cleanliness and maintenance of public lavatories, and(d) the provision of baby changing facilities.(3) The review must make a recommendation as to whether further measures should be introduced in order to address the requirements in subsection (2).(4) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the review before both Houses of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a review of the impact of the Act on the provision of public lavatories in England, with particular focus on number and distribution, accessible toilets, cleanliness, and baby changing facilities.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, in moving Amendment 3, to which I have added my name, I indicate my support for the other amendments in this group.
I thank the Minister for being so generous with his time. I also thank the British Toilet Association for attending the meeting with the Minister and providing advice that underlined the crisis that this country faces with public toilet provision. I believe that those of us with amendments today are, generally, not intending to impede the passage of this Bill. We support its modest aims, but it is far too modest to make any real difference, as is the price tag the Government have attached to it. The view of the British Toilet Association is that it will not create any more public toilets, but it may stem the tide of closures. If that is the case, it is, I suppose, a small success.
Amendment 3 is designed to encourage the Government to be much more ambitious. Already, there has been a consultation on some aspects of toilet provision, but too many government consultations seem to run into the sand, so this amendment requires a government review of the success of this legislation, looking specifically at aspects of public toilet provision that I hope we can all agree are modest social requirements for the 21st century.
The amendment specifically refers to accessible toilets; with an ageing population, we need many more of these. It also refers to baby changing facilities, which need to be clean and available to men as well as women. Modern fathers and grandfathers face a real challenge finding such facilities when out with young children. The amendment refers to cleanliness—the pandemic has emphasised the importance of this aspect. It refers specifically to communities: the Government must recognise and cater for the needs of a modern, diverse society. Indeed, the Minister is himself Minister for Communities. I know that, with his considerable experience of local government and distinguished record, the noble Lord will be very aware of the challenges and choices facing local authorities.
In Wales, where I live, a public health Bill put responsibility on local authorities to develop a strategy for the provision of public toilets: at last, there begins to be a longer-term view. Numbers count, and they dwindle all the time. Financially stretched councils often feel forced to cut funding to non-statutory services and, astonishingly, public toilets are a discretionary service. For example, both Birmingham and the City of London recently announced widespread closures of public toilets, and this comes at a time when we are less likely to be able to pop into a shop, pub or cafe to use their facilities.
In his opening speech at Second Reading, the Minister told us about government participation in the excellent community toilet scheme. The problem is that many such facilities are unlikely to reopen because the Covid lockdown has destroyed so many high streets and small businesses. Yet the availability of decent public toilets will be key to the revival of town centres after the pandemic.
We are talking about basic human rights and basic human needs; we are all experts on this topic. We do not intend to push this amendment to the vote today, but I appeal to the Minister to use this opportunity to build on the work that the Government are already doing and to commit to bringing a report and, I hope, more ambitious proposals to this House in the foreseeable future.
Amendment 4 (to Amendment 3)
Lord Greaves
“(aa) the provision of public lavatories by town and parish councils,”
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I first pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Randerson for the campaigning which she does on this issue, together with colleagues and campaigning organisations. Not very long ago—perhaps 15 or 20 years ago—there was a view that public lavatories were on their way out. I hate to say this, but they were being flushed away, first because it was thought that they were not necessary and, secondly, because of cuts in local government spending which, as we know, have been particularly strong in the last 10 years. The organisations and groups that campaigned for them then were felt to be rather old-fashioned and out of date. That view has substantially changed now. People are coming to understand that they are so important if we want people to spend time on British beaches, at holiday resorts, using car parks in the hills, and going to town centres, particularly ones which do not have large, emporium-type shops whose lavatories you can use.
But who provides them? I do not know what proportion of public lavatories in this country are provided by town and parish councils, but I suspect that it is a lot higher than the proportion of the population of the country that is covered by them. They tend to cover wider, rural areas that tourists go to, main roads and so on. As my noble friend said, it is getting increasingly difficult to find public lavatories in big cities. They are being closed down. In cities, you can usually find somewhere to go in a pub, a restaurant or a large shop. That is not so in the countryside. It is very difficult to find a parish council, of any size, or a town council that does not own and run at least one public lavatory. Many of them have more than that. They are vital.
I will now get on to something which is a hobby-horse of mine at the moment. I spoke on it in the debate on the Budget last week and I will speak on it on every available occasion that comes up. These democratically elected local bodies called town councils are becoming increasingly important in towns—small and medium-sized ones particularly, but some large ones—which have lost their own local authority councils and which are increasingly losing them as the country moves towards unitary authorities. In place after place, it is these councils, the representatives of the local community, which are providing public lavatories.
In most cases, that is because they are heritage lavatories, in the sense that they were bequeathed to them by a previous town council or, in many cases, the district councils and unitary councils in the boroughs, which previously ran the facilities, where they have a town or parish council, are passing them over to them and saying, “Here it is—we’ll give it to you. It’s not exactly an asset, but nevertheless we will give it to you. It’ll cost you money to run, and it is your responsibility to decide whether you want to keep this going in your area, because we cannot afford it anymore.” That is happening in more and more places.
The problem is that, when a town or parish council decides that it wants a new public lavatory, how is it going to finance it? Very often, town councils are now charging levels of council tax which only a few years ago would have been thought extraordinarily high and impossible, because they are taking on more and more facilities such as parks, leisure centres, community centres and all sorts of things and having to pay for them. The boroughs, districts and unitary authorities are not doing them anymore and cannot afford them, whereas the town councils can put the council tax up and, if local people agree to it, they can keep those facilities going.
Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 6 in my name would require the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the number of public lavatories kept open by the rates release provided by this Bill. I also want to speak in favour of Amendment 3, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, which requires the Secretary of State not only to review the number of public lavatories in England but also to assess their distribution and whether the provision meets the needs of the community and also the cleanliness of public lavatories and whether baby-changing facilities are provided.
I very much regret that I was unable to speak in Committee due to sickness. I note the Minister’s offer to meet to discuss the issues that my amendment raises. I have since written to him saying that I would very much like to meet him, and I await his response eagerly.
I also want to thank the Minister for confirming in Committee that there are currently 3,990 public toilets in England and Wales. How does this figure compare with the figures of a decade earlier? According to the BBC report, “Reality Check: Public toilets mapped”, released in August 2018, there was a 13% decline in the number of public toilets provided by local authorities in the UK between 2010 and 2018.
We know that since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic many more public lavatories have closed. As I outlined in my letter to the Minister, the provision of public lavatories is an issue that has an impact on everyone in this country. To date, there has been a lack of data on public lavatory provision in the United Kingdom.
According to NHS England, 14 million adults in the UK have problems controlling their bladder, and 6.5 million have issues regarding their bowel. For too many, bladder or bowel continence issues are a significant barrier to living full and independent lives. As joint chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Bladder and Bowel Continence Care, I know well that a Royal Society for Public Health survey in 2018 found that one in five people did not feel able to go out as often as they would like due to the lack of public toilets available in England. The same survey found that 56% of respondents restricted their fluid intake before going out, trying to reduce the need to find a toilet.
The provision of public lavatories is a significant public health issue that requires far more attention than it currently receives. As part of the Government’s strategy to support people enjoying at least five extra healthy and independent years of life by 2035, serious consideration must be given by policymakers to how we can support people living with continence issues. The provision of public lavatories is clearly a critical part of this.
The aim of this Bill in providing rates relief for the providers of public lavatories is a good one that I hope will help keep more of these facilities open. The purpose of my amendment, and that in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is to ensure that the Government track the success of this initiative and, more generally, that they gather more useful data regarding the provision of public lavatories.
Given that the scope of the Bill is limited to rates relief, it was not possible to table amendments to address some of the broader policy issues regarding public lavatories and continence care. That will have to wait till another day. My amendment aims to improve our evidence base on public lavatory provision in this country to assist the Government with any future policy decisions in this area. I shall not put it to a Division, but I hope that the Government will agree to it being added to the Bill.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thoroughly support the amendments, not to the point of wishing to divide on them but to say that the provision of public toilets is something that Parliament should have its eye on and that the Government should keep us in touch with. I do not believe for a moment that any of us want to go back to the condition of a few centuries ago when there were no such things. Those of us who are my age will have had the chance to sample such environments on our travels. Although I can attest for the sheer romance of being out on a dark evening and listening to the dung beetles scenting what is going on and humming towards you, that is really not the way that we, or anyone else in this world, should seek to run our towns.
I very much hope that the Government, in their attention in this Bill and in the consultation that they are conducting on toilets generally, will evolve a system of making sure that our provision of public toilets is not only sufficient to ensure that we have clean and hygienic towns and cities but that all those who might otherwise be restricted in their access to the world by a lack of public toilet provision are not so restricted. I encourage the Government, even if they do not accept these amendments today, to put the feeling that lies behind them into practice and, in due course, into law.
Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I can speak very briefly to Amendments 3 and 6, which I sincerely support. A review after 12 months and annual reviews thereafter are essential if we are going to get a real grip on how effective this Act has been, and we all want it to succeed. There may well be other ways of collecting statistics, but a specific return is very important, not least for planning for the future, and that is where I shall place my emphasis.
The Minister was very kind and met us this week. He seemed to share our concern that we must not go backwards in the provision of public lavatories and our feeling that this is an opportunity to start to plan much more strategically and successfully for the future. The Victorians, with their deep awareness of the priority of public health, infectious diseases and the rights of men and women, were in no doubt about the importance of public lavatories. We ought to take our lead from them, because Covid has had a devastating effect on public services. Provision of, and the priority we have given to, decent public lavatories has deteriorated.
As we heard from the British Toilet Association this week, there is no doubt that this service is in crisis. That is not a word it uses loosely. Covid has shown what happens when public loos are shut with no thought for what else might happen when everything around them is also shut—all the ancillary provision in shops, public buildings and so on. It matters now that there are only public loos available, and it has proved a real nightmare in some places, with the cuts in services—we have heard about Birmingham and the City of London already this evening.
This is a moment of opportunity which may override a sense of despair for three reasons. First, there is now a wider understanding than ever before of public health and how disease spreads, and people are aware of the need to take responsibility for their own health.
Secondly, public lavatories are now the only lavatories available to people in public spaces. When they are closed or in a disgusting state, it is no wonder that people are not very happy about leaving home and tend to reconcile themselves to staying in and feeling trapped and claustrophobic in the way we have all experienced to some extent during Covid.
Thirdly, this has direct economic consequences. It is not simply a right; it is a social and economic function. It means, in particular, that our town centres, which are suffering so badly, will have less appeal and less reason to be visited. They have taken the brunt of Covid in so many ways—there are forests of estate agents’ signs in the town I live in. If the Government are serious about making town centres the centre of our communities again, they have to prioritise the provision of public loos.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 3 seeks to exploit the opportunity—as the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, said—that the Bill gives the Government to find out whether we have enough public lavatories throughout England, particularly for the growing number of disabled and elderly people, and whether this Bill, after a year, will have had the impact we all hope it will have.
I too am grateful to the Minister for arranging a meeting with the British Toilet Association. However, I am afraid, as I think the Minister realised, we learned that things were even worse than we thought, with a great many public lavatories closed, whether through fear of spreading the disease or because cleaning could not be undertaken. I myself have not been out and about for months, as I am in the “extremely vulnerable” category, but my friends tell me there is such a shortage of open public lavatories that there is evidence of people using front gardens to relieve themselves.
In Committee, I asked the Minister whether he would update the House on the Changing Places facilities. Muscular Dystrophy UK, which is co-chair of the Changing Places consortium, has been working with the Government to help identify how best to direct the funding. Could the Minister give us more detail on how this is going? Brilliant though Changing Places is, the country also needs a greater number of more modest disabled loos. We should take this opportunity, as a matter of urgency, to find out just how many open public lavatories we have for everyone.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I warmly commend the four noble Baronesses who have put their names to Amendments 3 and 6. In speaking to this group, I declare my professional involvement with non-domestic rating as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as head of the National Association of Local Councils, and through my involvement with rural tourism and public access generally. So I hope noble Lords will forgive me for having a slightly dry, technical assessment of this approach.
It is right that, in the light of mass closures of public lavatories up and down the country, we should have a better idea of the provision and what is happening in terms of trends. I do not have the figures to hand, but my expectation as a chartered surveyor would be that in the context of the overall cost of the facility of heating, lighting, water supply, cleaning, building repairs, insurance and maintenance, the business rate element of a public lavatory would not be a tremendously significant factor. However, I stand to be corrected. Maybe a superior facility would indeed attract a willing payment per use at economically viable levels. Certainly, some municipalities are starting to buck the trend, and I am very pleased to note that Wales is leading the way—a point made so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson.
The measure demanded here would obviously involve devoting some government resources to the review referred to. The distribution of Changing Places facilities is known, if I apprehend correctly from the British Toilet Association’s information. However, those run by other organisations—parishes, municipalities, venue and beauty spot managers, stately homes, royal parks, shopping centres and so on—is information not necessarily collected in one place. Though the dispersed knowledge must be held somewhere, it is not comprehensibly in the rating lists, for instance, which only record those separately in assessment. However, I do think that there is a collective will to close this information gap if the Government were so minded to tap into it.
As we have heard, public lavatories are clearly part of essential infrastructure. The old, the young, those with medical conditions, and the fit and healthy, all need access to decent lavatory accommodation. Manifestly, there are gaps in provision, because I am certain that we are all, like the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, aware of unsuitable areas being used for informal toilet purposes. This is a personal hygiene and general public health issue, potentially damaging to the general environment, and must be addressed.
Regarding Amendment 4, I applaud and support the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in advocating the role of parish and town councils. Many parish councils would willingly take on public lavatories, but as we have heard, are no more able to raise the money to run them than the principle authorities who may run them now. Even in transferring responsibility to parish councils, as happens, it is commonplace for the financial provisions not to form part of the transfer. This adds to the problem, and the essential funds for this essential infrastructure are therefore not ring-fenced. This is part of the process of attrition.
Beyond that, it is a matter of economic consequence for optimising the use of destinations to which the public may resort, and the public enjoyment of urban and rural space for shopping, recreation and so on. I find it tragic to hear, as we just have, of people who dare not venture far from home because of distance from suitable facilities or certainty of any provision whatsoever. I am mindful of the gross indignity that such an absence of facilities can create. These issues are very important. I am less certain that they are necessarily a matter for the Bill, given its long title, but having been accepted as amendments, I assume that they are in scope. Accordingly, I accept the general thrust of these, and look forward with interest to the Minister’s comments.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has withdrawn from this group, so I call Baroness Pinnock.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Randerson has a wealth of knowledge of the value and importance to our communities, large and small, of the provision of clean, well-maintained public toilets. Her argument is a powerful one. We learned from the meeting that we had with the representatives of the British Toilet Association and the Minister that, in fact, there is no longer accurate mapping of open public toilets around the country. During these 12 months of Covid closures, public toilets have been shut out of concern that their use might enable virus transmission. As the country seeks to return to a more normal way of life, what is vital is that public toilets are available in every community. All noble Lords who have spoken so far have made that point. That is why I totally agree with my noble friend that this Bill lacks ambition and what is needed is a strategy for public toilets from a public health perspective.
I have a suggestion for the Minister. The Government are allocating funding via a Towns Fund to help regeneration. Perhaps he can urge his department to attach a requirement to successful grant applications that towns ensure, as a minimum, that they have a well-maintained and accessible public toilet for the disabled.
My noble friend Lord Greaves pointed out how important parish and town councils are in maintaining existing public toilets. He also pointed out the difficulty that those councils have in accessing capital money in order to restore or build new facilities. That, too, is something to which I hope the Minister will respond.
The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, urges us, as a society, to recognise the essential need for decent public loos, and that their provision is in crisis. I agree wholeheartedly when she says, “If Wales can do it, so can England.” It was well said.
My noble friend Lady Thomas speaks with long experience of the barriers that are unwittingly created for disabled people by the rest of the community. There has been a failure to provide public toilets that are both available and accessible. If we all had to plan our days out shopping or visiting on the basis of the availability of an accessible toilet, my hunch is that many more would soon be provided.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for pursuing a similar amendment and for supporting the purpose the amendments in the names of my noble friends. Of course, we on this side totally support this Bill. It will have some limited impact that might well ensure that some public toilets remain open. Unfortunately, it fails to address the wider issues of comprehensive provision and the role of government in encouraging and supporting the funding of such facilities. Hence, I fully support all the amendments in this group. Perhaps the Minister can provide some hope that the Government will return to the lack of provision of public toilets in future legislation. Better still, they could use the current funding regime to make their provision a priority for grants. I hope that the Minister will be able to offer some evidence that the Government take the matter seriously, and I look forward to his response.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is a good amendment and I support it. I look forward to the Minister’s response. The noble Baroness is absolutely right to highlight these issues. An ageing population needs more facilities; parents need facilities for their children. The point the noble Baroness made about changing facilities for fathers and male guardians is very well made. We also need to ensure that proper facilities are provided for disabled people, so I very much agree with the noble Baroness on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, spoke to an amendment to the lead amendment. He was absolutely right in talking about people visiting town centres, beaches and so on. We are all looking forward to the lifting of lockdown over the next few months. The Government are going to say, “Get out there. Go out there and spend some money, visit some places and meet your family and friends”. I want to do that.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock, Lady Randerson, Lady Thomas and Lady Greengross, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for their amendments, which would require the Government to publish a review of the impact of this Bill on the provision of public toilets.
Every year, the Valuation Office Agency publishes a snapshot of the number of separately assessed toilets as of 31 March. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, my brief research indicates that there were 6,087 public toilets in 2000, and that number had reduced dramatically to 4,627 by 2014 and to 4,383 by 2016. I do not have the exact figure for 2010 but it is clear that we have seen a dramatic reduction over many decades. As I mentioned in Committee, the current figure stands at 3,990 such facilities in England and Wales. This annual data release also breaks the aggregate total down to a local authority level, thus giving an overview of the distribution of these facilities across the country. The VOA will continue to make this data publicly available each year. Any future trends in the total provision of separately assessed public toilets, as well as their distribution across the country, will therefore be apparent.
Of course, the Government do not want to see further reductions in this figure. However, it is important to recognise that the ability for any public toilet to remain open is based on a number of issues. This does not diminish the importance of this Bill, but it does mean that hanging any trends in the provision of toilets solely on this business rates relief would not be the right thing to do. Operators of public toilets—in many cases, local councils—make decisions on the provision of public toilets in their area having reflected on relevant building regulations and their equality duty, as well as financial considerations.
In the first instance, the provision of toilets reflects the relevant building regulations. For example, under current building regulations, all new non-domestic buildings are expected to include a unisex, wheelchair-accessible toilet. Furthermore, I appreciate that Amendment 3 refers specifically to Changing Places toilets. I am pleased to be able to say that a major change in building rules in England made at the start of this year means that it is now compulsory to include a Changing Places facility in certain new public buildings. This is estimated to add these crucial facilities to more than 150 new buildings each year.
The House may also be interested to hear that the Government are currently undertaking a review of Part M of the statutory building regulations, which covers the access to and use of public toilets. This review will cover issues of mobility, demography and wider inclusion, and it will look at the size and layouts of toilets alongside the range of facilities needed to meet the requirements of people with different needs. This review will therefore look at the need to make any changes to building regulations in the context of the need for a fair provision of accessible toilets—including Changing Places facilities—and baby-changing facilities.
Clearly, a one-size-fits-all approach to toilet provision would not be appropriate, and it is important that any support given to the total provision of public toilets is not blind to the need to ensure that the needs of all are met by this provision. That is why my department is undertaking a technical review of toilets which will consider the ratio of female toilets required versus the number for men, as well as the need for a fair provision of accessible and gender-neutral toilets. We have received over 17,000 responses to this review as part of the call for evidence, which ran from 31 October 2020 to 26 February this year. The Government are now considering these representations and will respond in due course.
As well as the important measure in the Bill, the Government are providing significant grant funding to directly support the provision of public toilets. In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, I am happy to give some more detail on the £30 million fund put in place by the Government to support the provision of Changing Places toilets. I am happy to say that the Minister for Regional Growth, Minister Hall, has now announced that this funding will be provided to councils on an opt-in basis so that they can install facilities in their local areas and boost the number of Changing Places toilets in existing buildings. District and unitary authorities in England will be invited to complete a short expression of interest and will soon receive full details of how they can access this funding.
I can also confirm that the Government are partnering with the charity Muscular Dystrophy UK—as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas—to develop guidance to support the allocation of this funding. Muscular Dystrophy UK is an expert in this field and co-chairs the Changing Places consortium. I am sure that the House will agree that this partnership is a positive and important element of a significant multiyear programme to accelerate the provision of these vital facilities.
Finally, I would like to take the opportunity to thank those from across the House who took time to meet me and representatives from the British Toilet Association earlier this week. It was a valuable and constructive meeting and there was broad agreement on the importance of this measure in supporting toilet provision. While I do not think that an assessment of toilet provision in the context of the business rates system would be appropriate, I would be happy to meet again with any Peers who have an interest, as well as with the British Toilet Association, the National Association of Local Councils and the Local Government Association. I hope that this will provide us with an opportunity to further explore what is clearly an important issue, not just to those in this House but to many people across the country, and to build that ambition around the future provision of public toilets that has been called for by so many in this House.
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock, Lady Randerson, Lady Thomas and Lady Greengross, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for their amendments, which recognise the importance not just of the total provision of public toilets but of having appropriate facilities which meet the needs of all. However, on the basis of the points I have made to the House, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, will withdraw her amendment.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, along with others, no doubt, I thank the Minister for his great interest in this area. I should apologise for not being able to make the meeting on Monday. I intended to, but I was caught up in a site meeting on ward issues. They are pretty difficult to organise at the moment, so it took rather longer. I apologise for that, but I have had good reports.
The only point I want to make is to thank the Minister for underlining what I was trying, less effectively, to say about the opt-in provision for new Changing Places-type provision and the fact that it does not apply to town and parish councils. However, major public buildings in a small town—a big community centre, a town hall or a leisure facility—may well belong to and be operated by the town council, and often are. The larger town councils at least ought to be included in that, and I wonder whether the Minister could go back and have a look at that. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, this has been an excellent short debate and I thank all noble Lords who have participated. I note the cross-party support for the proposals here. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for reminding us that, while in this House we often speak of lofty ideals, in practice, out there on the streets of this country, it is the local facilities—the bus shelters, the bus timetables, the street lights and the public toilets—which make a world of difference to the quality of life of people who live here. And when those facilities are not good enough, they really complain. Many of those who have spoken in this debate have been or are councillors, and it is the councillors of this country who deal with these essential daily issues.
I particularly thank the Minister for his response. He provided some useful statistics to underline the need for the kind of report that the amendment suggests and outlined to us the details of the government review. I think the number of responses to it emphasises how important the issue is, and that there is clearly something wrong in the eyes of many people. I very much welcome the news about the government partnership with Muscular Dystrophy UK. I hope the Minister will think about this issue further and that, in due course, he will provide firmer details about future government action, because he clearly accepts that there is a need for action.
I particularly hope that the Minister will be able to address the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, raised about the ability of town and parish councils to apply for funding for changing places. There is really no logical reason why they should not be able to do so.
I hope my noble friend Lady Pinnock will be satisfied that she has had a long and very fruitful day speaking in this House. I thank her especially for being the lead signature to this amendment.
So although I am disappointed that the Minister did not give us a categorical assurance on the sorts of actions we all want, I am hopeful for the future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 5. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 5
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Report on the number of public lavatories and changing place facilities
(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, and every 12 months thereafter, a Minister of the Crown must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament.(2) The report must consider whether the Act has led to an increase in the number of public lavatories and changing place facilities in England and Wales.(3) The report must be produced in consultation with relevant stakeholders independent from the Government.(4) The report must consider whether, for the purposes of subsection (2), rate relief should be extended to include—(a) local authority property, libraries and community centres that are free of charge to enter and contain a public lavatory that is free of charge for anyone to use,(b) premises that consist partly of public lavatories, or(c) premises that contain a changing place facility.(5) If the report makes any recommendations in relation to subsection (4), a Minister must lay a statement before both Houses of Parliament detailing the steps that will be taken by the Government as a result.”
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the amendment seeks to add a new clause. Its purpose is to require a report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament on the number of public lavatories and changing place facilities within 12 months of the passing of the Act, and every 12 months after that.
The report has to address a number of important points and consider whether the Act has increased the closure of public lavatories and, importantly, changing place facilities. We need to have proper conversations with the relevant stakeholders. Like the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, I was sorry that I was unable to get to the meeting with the British Toilet Association because I was here, considering the Domestic Abuse Bill at the time. However, I welcome the offer from the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, to talk further on these issues, along with stakeholders such as the British Toilet Association, which does invaluable work for us.
Proposed subsection (4) of the amendment refers to whether the relief should be extended. That is very important. How does one extend rate relief? If the legislation is working, if the number of toilets is increasing and they are not being lost, we may well need to extend that rate relief. I make the point about changing place facilities because they are important. As I mentioned previously, there is now a changing place facility in the Tower of London. It is good enough for one of our historic royal palaces, so we should ensure that many other public buildings provide such a facility.
In the previous debate, I was reminded by my noble friend Lady Andrews of the importance of public health. I love the London Borough of Southwark—Southwark is in my title. The old town hall has a sign saying:
“The health of the people is the highest law”.
It was put there in Victorian times by the old St Mary Newington Vestry Hall. It is absolutely right. Think about what was being done in those times in terms of public health, sanitation and all the important things that had to be addressed. That motto is relevant today in terms of moving forward and ensuring that we address public health by having enough proper toilets available.
If the amendment is agreed, the Government will be asked to bring reports back to this House every 12 months. I suppose that the Minister is not going to accept the amendment. I may be wrong, but I hope that he can respond positively and genuinely because the Government need to arm themselves with that sort of information in order to get this matter right and ensure that the situation is improved for all our citizens.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendment. I do not need to say any more about it. It concerns a slightly different aspect of what we have been talking about. Apart from that, I have made the points that I wanted to make. All that I will say is that I will keep on making them until the Government wake up and understand the role of town and parish councils. Having said that, I will sit down.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews.
Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am going to follow the lead of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and commend the amendment that was moved very eloquently by my noble friend on the Front Bench. I have said everything I wanted to say about the importance of keeping accurate records, and a regular and transparent check on how effective the legislation is and the difference that it is making. That is sufficient from me this evening as well
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I shall follow the previous two speakers in keeping my comments brief. That is not because the amendment does not have merit—on the contrary, it does—but because a lot of the issues it raises have been discussed in full earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy is right to pursue the extent of rate relief provision. There is an anomaly in restricting relief to standalone public toilets. We heard from the Minister during the debate in Committee that it would be difficult to achieve rate relief for public toilets in public buildings for reasons of complexity for the Valuation Office.
I appreciate those challenges in the administration of such a change, but where there is a will, there is a way. If rate relief were granted for public toilets within public buildings, it might just be the sort of relatively minor additional support that kept the toilets, the building and the facility provided there open. That would be a triple benefit.
What concerns me is that the Government are less than willing to find a way to enable more public toilets to remain open by extending rate relief. I understand that that is difficult—but let us hope that the Minister will be able to have a good think about it and come up with an answer. Maybe the report provision in the amendment offers a way forward; perhaps he will be able to agree to accept that part of it. Whatever happens, we have had a good debate on an important issue concerning public health and public facilities that is of concern to many people. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, and I hope the Government are listening. I know the Minister has been listening.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I am conscious that everybody has kept their remarks relatively brief, so I am busily trying to pare down my speech in response to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy.
I appreciated the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, about the importance of town and parish councils in providing public toilets, and the fact that they have facilities that would benefit from, for instance, the Changing Places scheme. Because of the points that he has raised this evening, it is important for me to say that we will be looking at including in the guidance and the prospectus a call for councils at all levels to work together to think about provision, which I hope will help to ensure that town and parish councils are more involved than they otherwise would be. I thank the noble Lord for raising that point.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for tabling the amendment, which is similar to those previously discussed. I realise that his intention is to understand the difference this legislation has made, and I assure him that the Government keep under review the effectiveness of all business rates reliefs.
Nevertheless, as I set out earlier, the ability to keep a public lavatory open depends on a number of factors, and I do not think it would be possible to separate out the impact that this relief has had from the other aspects which determine local toilet provision. In addition, the amendment would require a report to consider whether the scope of the relief should be extended. I recognise that this is an issue in which many noble Lords are interested, so I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for the opportunity to set out why the Government have designed the scope of the Bill as we have.
Subject to Royal Assent, this Bill will deliver a 100% business rates relief for properties that consist wholly or mainly of public toilets in England and Wales. The relief has been deliberately designed to benefit those toilets for which removing the cost of business rates will make the greatest difference to the operators’ ability to keep the facilities open, and stem the decline that we have seen over many decades in public toilet provision.
Officials from my department regularly engage with the Valuation Office Agency and the Local Government Association ahead of the introduction of any business rates measures. Depending on the way in which the scope of the relief was extended, it might be necessary for an additional valuation exercise to be carried out by the VOA. I understand that the VOA has advised that such an exercise could require the assessment of hundreds of thousands of properties, at an estimated cost of around £90 to £120 per property. The total cost of carrying out an additional valuation exercise would therefore be significant, and would be disproportionate to the potential benefits to ratepayers of expanding the scope of the relief.
A different approach to extending the scope of the relief could reduce the burden on the Valuation Office Agency but instead require local authorities to identify qualifying hereditaments. On the basis of conversations with the LGA, my department considers that this would be likely to create additional administrative burdens and costs for councils, which would have to go beyond simply using the existing “public conveniences” category on rating lists, and would have to make decisions on a case-by-case basis.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, suggested in Committee that most qualifying ratepayers would self-identify, therefore reducing the burden on local authorities. I agree that this could be the case, but some element of scrutiny would still be likely to be required on the part of each council to identify fraudulent or spurious claims, so the creation of administration and oversight would remain unavoidable.
While the Government set the legislation which informs the structure of the business rates system, the burden of implementing a relief of this sort and the process of ensuring that it is operationally sound fall to local councils and the Valuation Office Agency.
In the case of this relief, the Government consider that this balance has been met in the Bill as currently drafted. By ensuring that the criteria for the relief reflect a pre-existing category on rating lists, we have found a happy medium between ensuring that the measure delivers value for money and is straightforward for local authorities to implement, while providing targeted support for those facilities for which removing business rates costs will make the greatest difference.
It would be extremely difficult to isolate the changes this measure has had on increasing the number of toilets and changing places facilities from wider factors. Nor do I agree that it would be a good measure of the impact of the relief. However, I can assure the House that we will continue to keep all reliefs under review and, together with my colleagues in the Treasury, to listen to representations on how to improve the business rates system. I hope that, on this basis—and on the basis of the points made earlier this evening—the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that detailed reply to my amendment, which I will withdraw. We have had a good debate this evening on various aspects of the Bill and the rate relief that has been offered. We need to keep it under review. I am very pleased the noble Lord said that the Government will do that as we all want to see public facilities maintained and hopefully improved and increased. We all want this rate relief to work, so I hope that, if we find evidence that things are not working well, the noble Lord, his department and other colleagues in government will look at those representations carefully to see whether we can improve or enhance what has been offered here. I thank him for his response and all speakers in this short debate for their contributions. At this stage, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.