House of Commons

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

Thursday 22 April 2021

The House met at half-past Nine o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Orders, 4 June and 30 December 2020).

[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

What recent assessment his Department has made of trends in the level of UK exports of food and drink to the EU.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

The combination of falling demand in the EU due to coronavirus restrictions and the introduction of new procedures at the end of the transition period meant that exports fell significantly in the first month of January. Exports of food and drink recovered in February, increasing by 77% on the previous month. While official statistics for March are not yet available, we know that the number of applications for export health certificates has continued to grow.

[Gavin Newlands [V]]

Since the Government’s precious Brexit, fish exports to the EU have collapsed and the Government said it was teething problems; cheese exports collapsed and the Government blamed exporters for poor paperwork; seafood exports collapsed and the Government said they might reclassify waters to make them cleaner. But nothing substantive has happened on any of it. What will it take to get action from Ministers, or do we have to wait for a text from a crony?

[George Eustice]

We have indeed taken action right from the moment that there were teething problems in that first week of January as import agents, exporters and border control officials struggled to get used to the paperwork. As I pointed out, it is an improving situation. The hon. Member asked about trends. The trend is a rising one, increasing by 77% in February, and with export health certificates continuing to grow.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) [V]]

Scottish exports make up a quarter of the UK’s food and drink exports. Those exports have been hammered by Brexit, losing out on hundreds of millions of pounds in sales in January and February alone, with some products seeing their market all but collapse, and virtually nothing is being done about it. A new Brexit cliff has arrived before we finished plummeting off the last one: composite food products now need export health certificates. The chaos of the last set of regs is still haunting our exports, and this new chaos will further dent them. Vets say they will not have the capacity to deal with this. What plans do the Government have to address that clear danger?

[George Eustice]

The European Union has changed some of its export health certificates, particularly for composite goods, from 21 April. We have been working very closely with industry and all those affected over the last few months. We knew that this was going to happen. We have worked with it on getting those replacement health certificates and, in some cases, the need for a private attestation. Yes, it is complicated. It is a change in law that the EU has made and always intended to make, but we worked very closely with industry and all those affected to make sure that they were ready.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

What discussions he has had with the Home Secretary on reducing dog thefts.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

What discussions he has had with the Home Secretary on reducing dog thefts.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I recently met the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor in March to discuss the important issue of pet theft. As a result of that meeting, officials from across the three Departments have been tasked with developing solutions that tackle this issue effectively. The work of the pet theft taskforce has already begun, with officials drawing together available data and evidence.

[Alex Cunningham [V]]

The Secretary of State, I am sure, has a comprehensive understanding of this issue, which causes undue distress to people and affects dogs, cats and all manner of other pets. This week, for example, Cats Protection told me that cat theft is up threefold since 2015. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government will back my amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which deal with pet theft and introduce tough sentences for those whose actions devastate so many families?

[George Eustice]

We are aware that there are some reports of a significant increase in the incidence of pet theft. A number of organisations say that reports of it are doubling, and the official figures show a sharp increase, albeit from a relatively low base. We are looking at the issue, and that is why we established the pet theft taskforce. There is already the possibility of a maximum sentence of seven years for aggravated offences, particularly where there is emotional distress, which clearly there is in the case of pets. We are reviewing this particular area of law.

[Mr Betts [V]]

I am sure the Secretary of State recognises that for those committing the theft it may be a financial issue, but for those who have their pets stolen this is really a loss of a valued member of their family. I give credit to The Star newspaper in Sheffield, which has highlighted a growing number of these incidents, and the heartbreak and anguish it causes people to lose their valued pet. Will the Secretary of State accept that this is a different sort of crime to the normal theft of a possession, and that, as such, it needs a different, specific offence with specific and tougher penalties enacted for those who commit it?

[George Eustice]

It is a different type of offence in that there is emotional stress on the owner of the pet, but there can also be stress and effects on the welfare of the animal. That is why, in the current sentencing guidelines, the courts can take account of an aggravated offence with emotional distress, and the maximum penalty could be as high as seven years. We have asked the pet theft taskforce to look at this issue more closely and assemble the evidence to consider whether anything further is required.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Pet theft is on the rise, partly because of the demand for pets through lockdown. When gangs steal a pet, they cause harm not only to the pet, but to the families who miss it. We still do not have the five-year sentencing for animal cruelty, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) has been trying his best to get through. In the next Parliament, can we not only have that five-year sentencing for cruelty but link in dog theft to the legislation?

[George Eustice]

The legislation on increasing the maximum penalty for animal cruelty is nearing its completion. I have a high degree of confidence that we will be able to get it through before the end of the Session. Indeed, we will say more about that over the next day or so.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the coronavirus zoo animals fund.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

The zoo animals fund has supported a wide variety of zoos throughout the pandemic—56 to date—and it continues to do so. It has helped to ensure the continued welfare of zoo animals and to prevent unnecessary euthanasia. We are really pleased that zoos of all sizes and types have been able to secure funding.

[Christian Matheson]

The problem is that the £100 million announcement was more froth than substance, with only £5 million or £6 million of it being spent and not returned to the Treasury. Will Ministers now agree to extend the zoos fund to the important conservation, educational and scientific work that is the bedrock of so much of what our zoos contribute to the global situation?

[Victoria Prentis]

I do not accept that. This is a real fund, which is being used on the ground to help zoos get through the pandemic. I am very pleased, as I know the hon. Gentleman is, that Chester zoo is now open and that baby Albert the giraffe is open to view. We have extended the fund, for example, to include repairs and maintenance. We continue to work on the fund, but I politely suggest that other Government and UK funds are available to help with the important conservation work done by zoos, such as the Darwin initiative and the green recovery challenge fund. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to work with Chester zoo to look at whether those would be suitable.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

What steps he is taking to encourage the use of alternatives to neonicotinoids which do not harm pollinators.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

The Government are committed to supporting alternatives to chemical pesticides. We are currently analysing the responses to our consultation on the national action plan. The proposed plan supports the development of low toxicity methods and improved advice and support for users.

[Wera Hobhouse [V]]

One hundred and fifty-seven of my Bath constituents have written to me since January to raise this issue. We must remember that we are in not only a climate emergency, but a nature emergency. Given that the Government made an explicit pledge to keep pesticide restrictions in place after Brexit, will the Minister commit to giving the Office for Environmental Protection the powers and resources to hold public authorities to account on environmental standards?

[Victoria Prentis]

I know that the hon. Lady shares my desire that the world will be in a much better place for our children, and may I congratulate her on the birth of her recent grandchild? The Government are therefore completely committed to reducing chemical pesticide use. Protecting pollinators, for example, is a real priority for the Government. They are an essential part of the environment and play a crucial role in food production. As I said, we are analysing the many responses—probably some of them from her constituents—to our recent consultation and we will set out our proposals in due course.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

There was widespread relief this year that the colder weather meant that the risk of aphids spreading virus yellows was reduced. Before that, the Secretary of State had authorised a neonicotinoid pesticide to be used, and he has indicated that that will be the same again for the next two years. What is worrying is that the expert advice has been hidden from us—it took freedom of information requests from Friends of the Earth to get it. The Health and Safety Executive recommended refusal, so will the Minister explain why the advice was overruled? At a time when the UK is being looked to for global leadership on the environment, hiding that expert advice is not a good look. Who was pressing the Government to overrule that advice and will they do better in future?

[Victoria Prentis]

The Government are committed to the neonicotinoid restrictions that we put in place in 2018, and to the sustainable use of pesticides. I believe that the hon. Gentleman was a signatory to the letter that we answered in January this year. As we set out in our letter, when making decisions on pesticides we took advice from the HSE, from the expert committee on pesticides and from DEFRA’s own chief scientific adviser. The specific exemption that the hon. Gentleman has referred to was for a non-flowering crop that is grown only in the east of England, to protect against possible aphid predation, which we were very concerned about at the time. I share his relief that it was not necessary to use neonics on that occasion, and I would ask him to welcome the fact that the authorisation was strictly controlled. We put in place a reduced application rate and a prohibition on growing flowering crops afterwards. I am pleased that it was not necessary to use it on that occasion.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

What steps he is taking to help protect communities against flooding.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

What steps he is taking to help protect communities against flooding.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

What steps he is taking to help protect communities against flooding.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)]

The Government are investing a record £5.2 billion to better protect 336,000 properties from flooding and coastal erosion over the next six years. Alongside that, we recently announced that 25 areas will receive a share of a further £150 million for particularly innovative projects dealing with flood resilience and pioneering many things that we think we will learn lessons from. Our long-term policy statement outlines our ambition to create a nation more resilient to flooding and coastal erosion and we are taking a whole range of actions to forward that.

[Henry Smith [V]]

I pay tribute to this Government for the significant flood mitigation investment that has been delivered. What discussions has my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary had with our right hon. Friend the Communities Secretary about not building new homes on flood-risk areas, such as the proposed west of Ifield development?

[Rebecca Pow]

As my hon. Friend will know, national planning policy provides clear safeguards for protecting people and property from flooding, and the national planning policy framework is very clear that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at the highest risk. Where development is necessary in such areas, that development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and should be appropriately flood-resilient.

[Jonathan Gullis [V]]

Residents of Norton Green and their local ward councillors, Dave Evans, James Smith and Carl Edwards, have regularly raised the issue of flooding. The River Trent and the canal feeder to the Caldon canal both run through Norton Green, yet the river is hardly ever dredged. The river is the responsibility of the Environment Agency, and the canal feeder is the responsibility of Severn Trent Water. If those two agencies co-ordinated their work, they could help to alleviate the problem, so will my hon. Friend work with me to ensure that the Environment Agency and Severn Trent Water undertake regular dredging to help to improve the lives of Norton Green residents?

[Rebecca Pow]

My hon. Friend is a doughty spokesman for his constituency, and rightly so. I encourage all relevant risk-management authorities to work together on watercourse maintenance, for the benefit of Norton Green’s residents in this case. Of course, responsibilities lie with a range of bodies, including the Environment Agency, which is responsible for the main rivers; lead local flood authorities or internal drainage boards, which are responsible for ordinary watercourses; and riparian landowners whose land adjoins a watercourse. My hon. Friend could usefully get all those heads together so that people can work constructively, as they are in many parts of the country, to deal with our flooding issues and keep our communities safe.

[James Wild]

This year the Burnhams, the Creakes and other villages in North West Norfolk suffered flooding that resulted in sewage coming up through manhole covers due to water infiltrating the sewer system. Things got so bad that foul water had to be pumped into one of our precious chalk streams, so will the Minister ensure that the Environment Agency holds Anglian Water to account so that it puts in place plans and investment to ensure that that does not happen again?

[Rebecca Pow]

That is a scenario that nobody wants to see repeated. I hope my hon. Friend knows that I am championing his cause, as are the Government. Tackling the harm caused by sewer overflows into rivers, particularly chalk streams, is a top priority for the Government. That is why we established a storm overflows taskforce, made up of the Government, the water industry, regulators and environmental groups, which has set a long-term goal to eliminate harm from storm overflows. The group is considering the problems caused by infiltration, which my hon. Friend mentioned, and last month we announced plans to introduce legislation to address these things. We are moving on this.

[Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)]

What steps he is taking to tackle plastic waste.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)]

We are committed to tackling plastic pollution. We have introduced a ban, with a few very specific exemptions, on the supply of plastic straws, stirrers and cotton buds, and reduced single-use plastic carrier bag usage by 95% in the main supermarkets through the 5p charge. This is a great day, and I am pleased my hon. Friend has chosen to raise this subject today, because we are debating increasing the charge to 10p and extending it to all retailers, and we are seeking powers in the Environment Bill to charge for single-use plastic items, making recycling more consistent.

[Jacob Young]

Plastic waste is a huge problem in coastal communities such as mine, but does the Minister agree that it is not that plastic is the problem but that waste is the problem and we should do all we can to tackle waste? To that end, will she come to Redcar and Cleveland, when restrictions allow, to visit the new site for ReNew ELP at Wilton, which began construction last month and where revolutionary hydrothermal technology will be used to turn hard-to-recycle plastics back into their component oils, allowing them to be reused?

[Rebecca Pow]

There is another doughty spokesman for his constituency. My hon. Friend has spoken to me about this matter before. It is vital that we tackle plastic waste by taking a holistic approach, which includes increasing reuse and recycling, in line with our ambition to transition to a more circular economy. More work is required to understand where chemical recycling represents the best outcome for waste and to assess any unintended consequences, but I welcome the invitation and the chance to visit the ReNew ELP site. He should contact my office, and, when time permits, I would be delighted to visit.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is good to be here in the Chamber and see you face to face today, Mr Speaker.

The Joint Unit for Waste Crime is an important component of the fight against waste, fly-tipping and littering. The Peterstone Wentlooge area of Newport West is a good example of an area in dire need of action from this unit, as the “road to nowhere” there, as it is known, is blighted by fly-tipping, including of noxious substances and chemicals. Clean-up costs for more than 1 million fly-tips cost the taxpayer £58 million in 2017-18, the last time the Department published details of clean-up costs. This Government have pushed councils to the brink and removed the funding needed to tackle fly-tipping, so will the Minister tell the House when this Government will finally take the action needed to protect this green and pleasant land?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question and I am sorry to hear about that road to nowhere. I would hate my constituency to be described as the “road to nowhere”. I understand what she is getting at, but this Government are tackling litter. We have a whole policy on tackling litter and I have been meeting Keep Britain Tidy regularly to discuss what more we can do. We have had a lot of campaigns, including “Keep it, Bin it”, which has been extremely effective, and we will be working further on measures. We relaunched the countryside code and added to it during lockdown to cut down on the amount of litter that is dumped, and this has had a significant effect. Local authorities have all of their measures that they can put in place—they can take people to court and people can get hefty fines—but they need to take action with the measures at hand.

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

What steps he is taking to improve the domestic inspection process for flowering bulbs imported from the EU.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

It is important that we maintain our biosecurity. Physical inspections of high-priority plants from the EU, including flowering bulbs, have taken place at their destination since 1 January. This is a temporary arrangement designed to prevent delays at the border, but it is working effectively and has been well received by the trade.

[Mrs Latham [V]]

Sadly, the bulb organisation that I spoke to told me that a couple of people have left the trade because it is not worth their while. I know that a lot of progress has been made since January on facilitating the trade between the UK and the EU, but there is still a lot of friction in the import and export of flowering bulbs. For instance, the export of bulbs in the green, which have soil on them, is now prohibited except in very specific circumstances, and sometimes 1,000 boxes might need to be inspected, which is not easy. What plans does my hon. Friend have to discuss with her EU counterparts the prospect of simplifying the trade in flowering bulbs with the EU?

[Victoria Prentis]

It is true that the plant-health requirements for dormant bulbs are different from those for bulbs in growth. My officials and I are willing to discuss directly with my hon. Friend’s constituents the specific issues that she raises. I reassure her that we continue to have discussions with our counterparts in EU about export processes.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

What discussions he has had with local authorities on preventing toxic air pollutants from affecting children’s health.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)]

Ministers regularly engage with local authorities to discuss air quality and assess their air-quality plans. I recently met elected representatives from Greater Manchester, Bath and North East Somerset, Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke, and we have made £225 million available to local authorities, via the active travel fund, to deliver safe cycling and walking routes, including school streets. As we review the air-quality strategy, we will include measures specifically to protect children from pollution.

[Tony Lloyd [V]]

The death of nine-year-old Ella Kissi-Debrah was a family tragedy, but it was made a public scandal when the coroner decided some time ago that her death was caused by air pollution, which was shocking. Yesterday, the coroner decided in his most recent report that there is no safe level of air pollution and called on the Government to bring our air-quality standards up to the World Health Organisation recommended levels, which would mean a significant reduction in pollution. Will the Minister tell the House whether the Government accept that recommendation? If not, we are literally putting the lives of our children at risk.

[Rebecca Pow]

We are of course taking this issue extremely seriously, and all our sympathies go out to Ella’s family. In fact, the Secretary of State and I were pleased to meet Ella’s mother—for which we thank her—and we listened closely to what she said. The coroner’s report was published yesterday and we will respond in due course. The points made are being taken extremely seriously.

Through our landmark Environment Bill, we will introduce a duty to set a long-term air-quality target and an exposure target. To do that, we are meeting all the scientists and academics and all those who can inform us as to exactly the right level to set. We understand that air pollution is a killer and we need to take it very seriously. A £3.8 million air clean-up programme is under way and we are working hard to ensure that that money is targeted at the places where it is needed.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

In the Committee on the missing-in-action and elusive Environment Bill, Labour tried to write the World Health Organisation air-quality guidelines into the Bill. Unsurprisingly, the Tories voted us down. Yesterday, in response to the devastating death of Ella Kissi-Debrah in 2013, the coroner published a prevention of future deaths report that recommended that the Government should view the World Health Organisation guidelines for air pollution “as minimum requirements”, because all particulate matter is harmful. The coroner has given a clear recommendation and clearly stated that it would save lives, so when will the Minister commit to setting a PM_2.5 target that is at least in line with the World Health Organisation guidelines?

[Rebecca Pow]

The report highlights that there is no safe limit of PM_2.5, which is why it is so important that we get it right. That is why we are taking so much advice on it. The WHO has acclaimed our clean air strategy as world leading and

“an example for the rest of the world to follow”.

It sets out the steps that we are starting to take to improve air quality. The Environment Bill will introduce a duty to set a long-term target on air quality and an exposure target, which nobody has done before. We will give the issue all the attention it deserves.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

What his Department’s policy is on the use of neonicotinoids in agriculture.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

DEFRA applies the precautionary principle in relation to pesticides. We therefore supported a ban in 2018 on the use of neonicotinoids to treat crops. Given what the current science tells us about these pesticides, they can be authorised for use only on an emergency basis if very specific circumstances are met and with the appropriate environmental safeguards.

[Dr Poulter [V]]

Farmers in the east of England very much welcome the Secretary of State’s dispensation for the use of neonics in treating aphids. What I want from the Secretary of State is some reassurance for the farmers in the east of England that, until a suitable alternative to neonics that is evidence based is available, he will continue to use the dispensation so that we can properly support our farmers to grow crops and protect them from aphids.

[George Eustice]

As I said, these are emergency authorisations that we grant on an annual basis. In the case of this application for the current year, we added additional conditions to those that have been proposed by the applicant—in particular, adding another 10 months to the period before a flowering crop could be sown. Also, in this case, the threshold for pests was not met and was therefore not needed, but, of course, if there is an application in a future year, we will look at that again.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

Today is Earth Day, an initiative that has been running now every year since 1970 and promotes engagement, awareness and individual action for our environment. The Government continue their own engagement with countries around the world in the build-up to COP26 in Glasgow later this year. As part of that programme, next Monday, along with the World Bank, I will be hosting the first dialogue on sustainable agriculture, setting out how changes to agriculture policy can incentivise regenerative agriculture and enhance environmental assets in the farmed landscape.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Given that food waste accounts for 19% of the UK’s landfill and that even the proposed targets in the Environment Bill to separate household food waste collections are unlikely to eliminate food waste in landfill by 2030, is it not time that his Department considered a food waste to landfill ban in England for food waste businesses that produce more than 5 kg of food waste per week?

[George Eustice]

We are obviously looking at this very carefully through our waste resources strategy and through the provisions in the Environment Bill. We will require local authorities to collect food waste through our consistent collections policy; that is an area that we are consulting on at the moment. Obviously, once food waste is collected separately we can treat it separately, and that could involve anaerobic digesters and other ways of dealing with this waste other than landfill.

[Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)]

Pet theft, especially of pedigree dogs, is a major issue in my constituency. What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice about introducing new measures to tackle this crime?

[George Eustice]

As I said earlier, I had meetings in March with both the Home Secretary and the Chancellor on this particular issue. We have set up a pet theft taskforce that is investigating it and, in particular, gathering the evidence to understand the scale of the

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

The year 2020 was the warmest year on record: more habitats were lost; more species were facing extinction; and more raw sewage was pumped into our nation’s rivers, seemingly without consequence for the water companies involved. On Earth Day, will the Secretary of State commit to take fast action against water companies that are pumping raw sewage into our rivers, killing fish, killing habitats and killing birds, and do so while committing to no further roll-back of environmental protections?

[George Eustice]

I have already acted in this area. The Department has established a taskforce to look at combined sewer overflows, which are one of the key sources of sewage pollution, and we are also putting a real focus on tackling sewage incidents in our future water strategy, which will inform Ofwat’s approach to the pricing reviews that it has with water companies.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]]

  According to research compiled by the Local Government Association, the manufacturers of food packaging in the UK contribute only about 10% of the cost of recycling their products. Does my right hon. Friend agree that as part of the efforts that we are undertaking to improve the recycling of waste food packaging, we need to see the manufacturers of that packaging contribute much more towards the costs of recycling their products, in line with the contribution they make in other countries, rather than leaving our council tax payers to foot most of the bill?

[George Eustice]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend on this matter. As he will be aware, the Environment Bill introduces the concept of extended producer responsibility, and we are consulting on that at the moment. In future, the manufacturers and the users of packaging for products will take responsibility for recycling it.

[Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) [V]]

Waste incinerators emit toxins and pollutants that are harmful to human health and exacerbate climate change. I am pleased to say that local residents in my constituency of Cynon Valley have recently successfully campaigned against a waste incinerator through the Valleys For Tourism Not Trash campaign, and the Welsh Government have recently announced a moratorium on any future large-scale incinerators. Will the Minister commit to reconsidering the Government’s decision to exclude waste incinerators from their post-Brexit carbon emissions trading scheme and follow Wales’s lead by introducing a moratorium on future incinerators?

[George Eustice]

This is obviously a contentious area. However, energy from waste can be a way of extracting some use from it. It is often preferable to landfill and often has lower carbon implications because some energy can be generated from it. Nevertheless, there are some environmental concerns around this. That is why in England the Environment Agency has to authorise and license any such facility.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con) [V]]

Charity shops are currently experiencing both a surge in donations and an increase in fly-tipping on their doorsteps. Many of the goods donated are of poor quality and simply cannot be sold on. This is causing significant extra waste disposal costs for charities, which have already seen their incomes diminish during the pandemic. What support can DEFRA offer through its new waste management plan to support the charitable community in this financial challenge?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Fly-tipping has become a scourge in recent years. It has become a growing problem, with organised gangs behind some of these waste crime incidents. We have already taken action to improve our surveillance and to improve the traceability of some of these products so that we can trace them back to the source that they came from and bring those responsible to justice.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) [V]]

A shocking report released by the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union has revealed that one in every five people working in the British food sector, which stretches from factories and distribution firms to cafés and supermarkets, live in households that have run out of food because of a lack of money. We live in arguably the sixth richest country on this planet and our workers are going hungry because of meagre wages. Does the Secretary of State agree that access to affordable and nutritious food is a basic human right, and will he commit to ensuring that the right to food is included in next month’s Queen’s Speech?

[George Eustice]

The Government monitor household spending on food very closely, and we agree that we want to raise earnings among the lowest paid. That is why it has been a long-standing policy of this Government to first introduce a national living wage and then increase it incrementally year on year, and we have done that to take the lowest paid out of poverty. As a result of that policy, household spending on food among the poorest households has actually fallen from about 16% to under 15%, which is the lowest on record.

[Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)]

  I have been working with local councillors in Stoke Bardolph and Burton Joyce to work with residents and partner organisations to set up a flood action group that will help to take some preventive action and provide reassurance in part of the Gedling constituency that occasionally floods. Will my right hon. Friend join me commending those who are volunteering to join this group and tell me what steps the Government are taking to help to prevent flooding in Nottinghamshire?

[George Eustice]

I commend the work that my hon. Friend and those local volunteers are doing. We have our flood resilience forums around the country. The Environment Agency works with local government on them and on putting them in place so that communities can improve their resilience. More broadly, we have an ambitious capital programme of more than £5 billion over the next five years to invest in flood defences and to protect communities such as his.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]]

In an earlier exchange about air quality, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), seemed to suggest that because there was no safe level of air pollution in the way it affects in particular our children’s lungs, that is a reason for rejecting a move to make legal the World Health Organisation standards. That is patent nonsense of course, but can Ministers look particularly at the position around our schools? It is where our young children are very vulnerable. Traffic idling can make pollution levels intense, particularly in urban areas. Is it not time now to take proper action and not simply hear fine words? Action now, Minister, please.

[George Eustice]

I am not sure that is what my hon. Friend said earlier, but she was making the point that since there is no safe limit of particulate matter and PM_2.5, what we should be doing is focusing on additional measures such as overall population exposure, and that is indeed something we are looking at through the target-setting process in the Environment Bill.

The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire, representing the Church Commissioners was asked—

[Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)]

What steps the Church of England is taking to support and strengthen families and marriages.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)]

My hon. Friend will be delighted to learn that the Archbishops of Canterbury and York have launched a families and households commission, which will be chaired by Professor Janet Walker, emeritus professor of family policy at Newcastle University, and the Bishop of Durham, who is the Church of England’s lead on family policy.

[Miriam Cates [V]]

This has been a tough year for families, but the strain on family life began long before covid, with policies encouraging parents to work longer hours, the breakdown of family relationships and the toxic effects of social media. In my surgeries, I meet many parents deeply concerned about their children’s mental health but not knowing where to turn for help. The local church could be well placed to support families in this area, so what plans does the Church have to encourage, empower and equip parents as they do their best to raise children in such a challenging time?

[Andrew Selous]

My hon. Friend is right to raise all those issues. We know that it is generally far better for the mental health of children that they are in school, which is why Church schools have stayed open as much as possible. Millions of home-schooled children have also used the “Faith at Home” online resources provided by the Church. Many parishes are now reopening their early years and children’s programmes, and the Church is actively working to provide more children’s and youth work in future.

The hon. Member for City of Chester, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission was asked—

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

What steps the Electoral Commission is taking to increase levels of political literacy among young people.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester)]

The Electoral Commission has an important duty to promote public awareness of the UK’s electoral systems. Following the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland and Wales, and ahead of next month’s elections, the commission has been working with teachers and youth leaders to support citizenship education and has shared newly developed education resources for young people in Scotland and Wales. These resources will be extended to cover young audiences in England and Northern Ireland later this year. Alongside that, the commission has developed a new public awareness campaign and online information hub to increase public understanding of political campaigning carried out online.

[Vicky Foxcroft [V]]

Shout Out UK, the secretariat for the all-party parliamentary group on political literacy, emphasises that political and media literacy go hand in hand. Considering the excessive harm we have seen caused by misinformation, conspiracy theories and low levels of media literacy, how can the Electoral Commission collaborate with organisations working to counter misinformation in order to fulfil its remit to ensure the integrity of the democratic process?

[Christian Matheson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The commission has recently published political literacy resources to include a module on online campaigning, which provides structured suggestions to help young people assess the information they see online. The commission has collaborated with a range of partners to develop those resources, including teachers, organisations supporting citizenship education, the Scottish and Welsh Governments and their respective Education Departments.

The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire, representing the Church Commissioners was asked—

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

What steps the Church of England is taking to support the Government’s plans to ban conversion therapy.

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

What steps the Church of England is taking to implement its 2017 commitment to end conversion therapy.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)]

The Church of England’s General Synod passed a resolution in 2017 calling on the Government to end conversion therapy, to prevent vulnerable people from being subjected to potential spiritual abuse. The Church remains committed to this and will work with the Government on how it can most effectively be framed.

[Aaron Bell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer and am glad to hear that restatement of the General Synod’s position in 2017. Do the commissioners agree that the Church must reject any assumption that any one identity or orientation is preferable to another and that any one-directional pursuit of a particular orientation amounts to conversion therapy?

[Andrew Selous]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. The Prime Minister remains resolutely committed to prohibiting the imposition of any harmful and unnecessary practice in this area, without criminalising clergy and Church members for non-coercive pastoral support that individuals ask for.

[Peter Gibson [V]]

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. However, may I urge him to do all he can in the upcoming discourse on this important ban to which the Government have committed to ensure that religious freedom and banning this abuse is not presented as a binary choice? Does he acknowledge that many of Christian faith and other faiths want to see an end to this abuse?

[Andrew Selous]

The Church believes that it is possible to end conversion therapy without outlawing prayer and private conversations with clergy and Church members that an individual has requested. The Church has not requested an opt-out from the proposed law and will look carefully at the detail when the legislation is published.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

What assessment the Church of England has made of the effect of online worship on church attendance.

[Andrew Selous]

The Church has been using all sorts of virtual and digital ways to worship in a highly effective manner, and that will need to continue as we open up again. The Church has reached many more people as a result.

[Martin Vickers [V]]

While I acknowledge the challenges that churches have faced in organising services of public worship, I am somewhat disappointed with the many weeks that some parishes have gone without services. What concerns me is that, if the Church quite reasonably uses more online resources in coming years, it should not use that to reduce the number of clergy, who have a much wider role in our communities than providing services. Can my hon. Friend assure me that this will not be used an excuse for reducing clergy numbers?

[Andrew Selous]

Increasing numbers of churches are now open again across the country, and while online services will no doubt continue, they are not seen as a substitute for meeting in person. Clergy have played an essential role during the pandemic, and I thank them warmly for everything they have done. My hon. Friend will be reassured to know that the Archbishop of York told the General Synod in February that the Church needs more priests, not less, and a parish system “revitalised” for its future mission to the nation, building on the work that the Church has done so well to tell the good news of Jesus and to meet need during the pandemic.

The hon. Member for City of Chester, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission was asked—

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

What steps the Electoral Commission has taken to support candidates with disabilities.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester)]

The Electoral Commission has supported all three of the UK’s Governments to develop funds to support access to elected office for candidates with disabilities. It provides guidance to candidates with disabilities about how to stand for election and how the spending rules apply to costs reasonably attributable to their disability. More broadly, the commission works in partnership with a range of organisations to ensure that people with disabilities have the information and support they need to be able to register and vote in elections.

[Dr Cameron [V]]

The proportion of politicians with disabilities still vastly lags behind that required to reflect our society, causing disadvantage and exclusion. The all-party parliamentary group for disability, which I chair, is undertaking an inquiry into the support required to ensure that people with disabilities have equal opportunity to stand for Parliament. Will the commissioners link with the APPG to support implementation of its findings?

[Christian Matheson]

The House will know of the work that the APPG has done across a range of disabilities, led by the hon. Lady, and is very respectful of the work that she and her team are doing. The commissioners are aware that the APPG will be undertaking this inquiry, and they assure me that not only will they help to inform that inquiry but that the inquiry will help to inform the commission with its outcome. Hopefully that will be a two-way process that will improve matters for people with disabilities in terms of their ability to stand for and participate in elections.

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

What assessment the Electoral Commission has made of the potential merits of using local referendums to inform local government reorganisation.

[Christian Matheson]

There are mechanisms in law for holding referendums on a number of local matters. Decisions on whether to deploy such a mechanism are political and not for the commission. It has therefore made no assessment of the merits of using local referendums to inform local government reorganisation.

[Mr Liddell-Grainger [V]]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I do not disagree at all, but we have a problem in this country when a body like Somerset County Council, which wants to go unitary, has asked the Government to do a consultation using the citizen space, which is not a consultation—anybody in the world can take part. Surely a referendum is the only way to truly hear what the people of Somerset want to say—under the auspices of the Electoral Commission, so that we have proper democracy, proper accountability? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is the way that government should work? Is that not the way the House should work?

[Christian Matheson]

The hon. Gentleman has a long history of promoting his concerns on local government in his area, and the House will respect the persistence in his campaign. However, under current legislation, local authority accounting officers would be responsible for running local referendums. The commission’s role would be limited to providing guidance to accounting officers on some aspects of the administration of local referendums, particularly where they are concerned with other events. If we were to achieve what the hon. Gentleman was hoping for, I suspect and fear that a change in legislation would be required.

The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

[Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)]

What assessment the Church of England has made of where people are at most risk of persecution as a result of their religion and belief.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)]

The Church of England is grateful to all those who carry the flame for the freedom of religion or belief. I would point to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom as a reliable source of information in this area. In its 2020 report it singles out China, Eritrea, India, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Myanmar, Nigeria, Russia, Syria and Vietnam as countries of particular concern.

[Caroline Ansell [V]]

The global pandemic has only exacerbated the persecution of people of faith. I was dismayed to learn from this year’s world watch list that Nigeria has become increasingly hostile to Christians. The Anglican Church in Nigeria is its second-largest congregation in the world, so what support is the Church of England providing to raise awareness and to tackle persecution in Nigeria and around the world?

[Andrew Selous]

The persistent attacks in northern Nigeria by Boko Haram and Islamist militia are a source of profound concern to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who knows Nigeria well, and to the wider Church. We are in regular contact with the Nigerian authorities and the Foreign Office, and tomorrow the General Synod of the Church of England will be debating freedom of religion and belief, which shows how seriously Church members throughout the country take this issue.

[Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)]

What steps the Church of England is taking to support regenerative agriculture, plant more trees and be effective stewards of hedgerows on its land.

[Andrew Selous]

I recently met Environment Ministers to discuss this issue, and the commissioners are working closely with the Forestry Commission and other similar landowners to share best practice to improve the environment of rural let estates. We are encouraging regenerative farming practices, with new farm tenancies including obligations on soil health at the beginning and end of tenancies.

[Virginia Crosbie]

I thank my hon. Friend very much for his excellent answer. The Church owns more than 100,000 acres of forest land, including large areas in Wales. How are the Church Commissioners ensuring that woodland can be sustainably managed, and that species such as red squirrels and hedgehogs are being adequately protected?

[Andrew Selous]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I can tell her that the Church Commissioners own 95,000 acres of forestry across the United Kingdom, Ireland, the United States of America and Australia; 2,166 acres of our forestry is in Wales. All our forests conform to the UK woodland assurance scheme and the UK forestry standard and have Forestry Stewardship Council certification, which the World Wide Fund for Nature recognises as the hallmark of responsible forest management.

The right hon. Member for East Hampshire, representing the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body, was asked—

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

What steps he is taking to promote the use of UK steel in the restoration and renewal programme.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire)]

The restoration and renewal programme will create investment nationwide through a supply chain involving hundreds of businesses. Building materials will be sourced domestically wherever possible, including high-quality UK steel.

[Charlotte Nichols [V]]

The Palace of Westminster is our nation’s flagship building and the home of UK democracy. It is only right that in procurement for its restoration we do all we can to support UK manufacturing and jobs. At a difficult time for the steel industry, an infrastructure project of this size and profile would no doubt be a huge boost for the sector. Will the right hon. Gentleman please outline what measures will be taken to ensure that steel used in the renovation and restoration of Parliament is bought in Britain?

[Damian Hinds]

I concur with the hon. Lady, who has consistently championed the UK’s high-quality steel sector. We do not yet know the exact steel requirements for the project, but there clearly will be a requirement. The project will obviously comply with public sector procurement rules but within those, as I said in my previous answer, we will seek to source materials domestically wherever possible. I confirm to her today that the programme is planning to sign the UK steel charter, an initiative from the sector that aims to maximise opportunities for the UK economy and UK steel producers.

The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire, representing the Church Commissioners was asked—

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

What future plans the Church of England has to work with social housing providers.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)]

Since 2015, the Church Commissioners have secured planning permission for 3,820 new homes, of which 820 are affordable. Across our portfolio, there is land suitable for the delivery of approximately 28,500 new homes across England, of which we estimate around 8,600 will be affordable.

[Stephen Timms [V]]

I thank the hon. Member for that answer. He announced a new commission earlier. I welcome very much the bold vision for addressing the housing crisis in the archbishops’ housing commission report published in February. How will the Church work with social housing providers to provide desperately needed affordable housing, including in east London?

[Andrew Selous]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his warm welcome for the housing commission report—a sentiment I very much share. The new housing executive team, led by the Bishop of Chelmsford, will focus on implementing the commission’s recommendations wherever we are able to do so across England, hopefully including east London.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

What plans the Church of England has to make the recently commissioned map of the landholdings of the commissioners, dioceses and parishes publicly available.

[Andrew Selous]

I reassure the hon. Lady that the process initiated by the archbishops’ housing commission of mapping as much of the Church of England’s land as possible has begun. It includes not just the commissioners’ landholdings, but land owned by dioceses and parishes, as well as glebe land.

[Kerry McCarthy [V]]

I thank the hon. Member for that response—it feels like we are starting to get somewhere. As he knows, I am keen for there to be transparency, because it will help campaigners identify sites for rewilding, agroforestry, social housing and other public goods. Accessing maps of all the land held by the Church Commissioners from the Land Registry would cost £37,428. Will he commit to making that information publicly available and free of charge? Will that be on the agenda at the General Synod, which starts tomorrow?

[Andrew Selous]

The hon. Lady’s intervention is timely, as the housing commission report has been timetabled for debate at the General Synod’s July session. The Church Commissioners are in close contact with the housing executive team, who are implementing the housing commission’s recommendations, about their plans for the future ownership and use of this map.

The hon. Member for City of Chester, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission was asked—

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

What recent assessment the Electoral Commission has made of the potential effect of Government plans to mandate voter ID in future elections on levels of democratic participation in the UK.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester)]

The commission’s independent evaluation of the Government’s pilots held in 2018 and 2019 found that a large majority of people already had access to the forms of ID used in the pilots. There was no evidence that turnout in the pilot scheme areas was significantly affected by the requirement for polling station voters to show identification. The commission emphasised that the UK Government and Parliament should carefully consider the available evidence about the impact and proportionality of different approaches on the accessibility and security of polling station voting. If legislation is brought forward, the commission will provide expert advice to parliamentarians on the specific proposals.

[Mr Carmichael [V]]

I thank the hon. Member for that answer. Notwithstanding the commission’s findings, though, it is estimated that it would cost something in the region of £20 million to introduce a measure such as this and there is always the risk of depressing voter turnout. Would he impress on the commission that, if that money is there to be spent, it would be better spent encouraging voter turnout, rather than on measures such as this, which I contend would inevitably depress it?

[Christian Matheson]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. The commission has a responsibility to maximise voter participation as well as to maintain free and fair elections. I will certainly impress on the commission the necessity of getting the balance right between those two responsibilities.

[Mr Speaker]

I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business.

10:30

Sitting suspended.

Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

Select Committee statement

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

[James Sunderland]

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

[James Sunderland]

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) [V]]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

[James Sunderland]

[Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con) [V]]

[James Sunderland]

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

[James Sunderland]

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

[James Sunderland]

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

[James Sunderland]

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

[James Sunderland]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Sitting suspended.

Speaker’s Statement

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

10:33

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the shadow Leader of the House to ask the business question, I should like to remind all colleagues that, today, 22 April, marks the anniversary of the very first hybrid sitting of the House, when for the first time hon. and right hon. Members were able to participate remotely in our proceedings. This innovation helped enable Parliament to continue discharging its key functions of scrutiny, debate and legislation safely, despite the extraordinary conditions imposed by the covid-19 pandemic. On behalf of all Members, I should like to thank all the staff of the House and the Parliamentary Digital Service for their remarkable achievement in making the hybrid House possible. It is a big thank you to everyone.

Business of the House

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

10:34

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

Before I do, may I join you, Mr Speaker, in thanking the digital and broadcasting services? They worked over the whole of the Easter recess last year to make this possible. They gave up most of their holiday during most of last year to make our hybrid proceedings work, and thus ensured that there has been proper parliamentary scrutiny throughout the whole year and that our democracy has remained strong and effective. Our thanks are most sincere and heartfelt because they have done something of the utmost importance for our nation.

On the business statement for the week commencing on 26 April, the business will include:

Monday 26 April—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Financial Services Bill, followed by consideration of Lords message on the Domestic Abuse Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the National Security and Investment Bill, followed by a motion to approve the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) (High-Risk Countries) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No. 392), followed by a motion relating to the Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel) (England) (Amendment) (No. 7) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No. 150).

Tuesday 27 April—Consideration of Lords message on the Fire Safety Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by a motion to approve the draft Warm Home Discount (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2021, followed by a motion to approve the Trade and Official Controls (Transitional Arrangements for Prior Notifications) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No. 429).

Wednesday 28 April—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by a motion to approve the draft Double Taxation Relief (Federal Republic of Germany) Order 2021 and the draft Double Taxation Relief (Sweden) Order 2021, followed by a motion to approve the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No. 375), followed by a motion related to the Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No. 184), followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by a motion to approve the House of Commons Commission report on amendments to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme.

Thursday 29 April—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.

The House will prorogue when Royal Assent to all Acts has been signified.

I am pleased to announce that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the summer recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 22 July and return on Monday 6 September.

[Valerie Vaz]

I join you, Mr Speaker, and the Leader of the House in the thanks that have been expressed. I want to thank the Clerk of the House for his leadership in ensuring that the whole staff of the House, the broadcasting and everything else enabled us to be the first Parliament in the world to be a hybrid Parliament and to carry on with our business.

I also want to congratulate Lord Fowler on retiring and Lord McFall on becoming the new Lord Speaker. Staying with the Lords, I want to pay tribute to Frank Judd, who served as an MP in Portsmouth from 1966 to 1979 and was a Minister in the Wilson and Callaghan Governments. He was a director of Oxfam before being appointed a life peer in 1991. He was an outstanding Member of both Houses. May he rest in peace.

We had Foreign Office questions on Tuesday, and there was nothing about Nazanin or Anousheh. Mehran Raoof’s friend has contacted the Foreign Office to ask for help. He has a trial coming up on 28 April, but has not been allowed to see his lawyer. He needs a Foreign Office representative to be at the trial and he also needs a doctor. I wonder if the Leader of the House could ensure that the Foreign Secretary is aware of that. It would have helped if the Foreign Secretary had updated the House on Tuesday about the permanent adjournment —it looked like a continuous adjournment—of the court case, even though a Government Minister has said the debt should be paid. I am not sure why the Foreign Secretary did not update the House on the citizens.

A statement was put out yesterday at 5 pm on the cuts to overseas development aid, and it is quite upsetting really that that was not announced in the House on Tuesday. This is a massive cut and it is going to have a huge effect on the way Great Britain is seen in the world.

I wonder what Her Majesty’s official Opposition have done because we do not appear to have received the business, whereas other Opposition parties have. Normally, we get the provisional business the day before, but I think we are off the bcc and cc lists. Would the Leader of the House kindly tell us what we have done wrong when we do not get the business?

Last week, the Leader of the House did not answer my questions on the independent adviser on ministerial standards. There has been no list of Ministers’ financial interests for nine months and no list of donor meetings. He will also want to correct the record, I am sure, because he said that Greensill did not get public support, when in fact it did: it got it from the coronavirus large business interruption loan scheme. So the lobbying did pay off. Greensill is the only supply chain finance firm accredited for CLBILS, despite not being regulated by the Bank of England or the Financial Conduct Authority. What is so special about Greensill and what is so special about Dyson? He took his business out of the UK.

Now, the Prime Minister was wrong. The shadow Chancellor has asked me to ask the Leader of the House to remind the Prime Minister that there were companies making ventilators in this country—Siemens and Airbus, to name a few—so I wonder if the Leader of the House could pass that on. She cannot find the Chancellor—we would like to know where he is—otherwise she would have passed the message on.

The Government are doing it again. The Cabinet Office and the civil servants are saying, “Please don’t do this.” They are going to appoint the head of space policy at Amazon to the Government’s own OneWeb, in which they have invested £400 million. This person will be working at Amazon as well as working with the Government. The Leader of the House needs to look at that. They have their own project, Kuiper. They are clearly going to have a competitive advantage. This is another case of fix it and flog it.

It is disappointing that the Leader of the House did not tell the House last week that the Prime Minister might have been in India. We got it from the presidential-style announcement in the £2.6 million press conference room, which is now going to be abandoned. It is good because the Prime Minister is not a president. It is odd to spend £2.6 million, and there is no mirror and no comb. The really nice spokesperson went from announcing geek of the week on “Peston” to leak of the week—effectively, it was a leak because those announcements should have been made in the House. She is now going back to geek of the week at COP26. She will have the same difficulty because she will have to explain contradictory Government policy. While the Government are about to reduce new emissions, they are still considering proposals for the first new deep coal mine in 30 years. Could we have a statement ruling that out before COP26?

It was announced not in Parliament but by press release that mobile phone masts up to 30 metres tall are about to get the green light to be put up in our countryside. That is a 20% increase on the current maximum. The shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), has said rural communities have become an afterthought. He wants everyone to be encouraged to take part in the rural England policy review to protect our countryside. Could we have a statement on that in the House?

I know the Leader of the House eats “Erskine May” for breakfast, but he does not seem to be absorbing anything. He knows that the job of Parliament is to hold the Executive to account, but he has presided over the marginalisation of Parliament. It is not me or the socialists saying that, but a paper by Professor Meg Russell, Dr Ruth Fox, Dr Ronan Cormacain and Dr Joe Tomlinson, which referred to no scrutiny of regulations and no meaningful debate. The House of Commons Library—I would not call it a bastion of socialism—said that Ministers can spend up to £469 billion before they get parliamentary approval of departmental spending plans. It would be interesting to hear what the Leader of the House thinks about that. Could we have a debate on restoring Parliament and the checks and balances on the Executive?

Later, there will be an apology for how black and Asian soldiers were treated. George Floyd is a movement. He died at the age of 46. A knee was on his neck for double the amount of time that I have been speaking. It was the right verdict. A young man who was about to become an architect would have been 46 today. We remember Stephen Lawrence; today is Stephen Lawrence Day.

Mr Speaker, you will be pleased that the fans got it right—no super league. They will be singing “Que Sera, we’re on the way to Wem-ber-ley”. We will all be going to Wembley, not just Leicester City and Chelsea, but we wish them well for the FA cup.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Yes, of course, we are right to commemorate Stephen Lawrence and Lord Judd— may both their souls rest in peace—and to congratulate Lord McFall on becoming the Lord Speaker. I am sure that you and he will have an excellent working relationship, to the benefit of both our Houses, Mr Speaker.

I am sorry that the right hon. Lady thinks she has not been doing the job of scrutiny very well over the last year, and that the procedures we have had have not been satisfactory and therefore the Opposition have been incapable of holding the Government to account. That is really the problem of the Opposition, in failing to use the tools to hand, of which there have been many. We have ensured that any serious change in the rules has been subject to a debate and a vote; we have had legislation passed and when it has been emergency legislation it has had the agreement of the Opposition; we have operated by consent—a year ago, when we introduced the hybrid measures, they were with the consent of the Opposition to do that, to ensure that scrutiny could continue. We have had really effective scrutiny available to the Opposition, if only they had chosen to use it. If they have not used it, that is their problem not mine, because we have made sure that Parliament has been at the centre of the national debate and that we have been able to sit. MPs have an unquestioned right to attend Parliament if they wish and if they do not wish to do so, they are able to Zoom in. So I completely dispute the interpretation of the proceedings we have had over the past year, and this is why we were all thanking the broadcasting and digital team for the work they have done.

On Nazanin and Anousheh, I will of course pass on to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary the points the right hon. Lady has raised, but I must make it clear that there must be and is no linkage between the improper, unlawful detention of British citizens and any debt that there may or may not be between the United Kingdom and a foreign state. Those two issues must always be separate.

As regards overseas aid, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is appearing before the Select Committee today, so it is only right that the statement was made yesterday—it will no doubt form the basis for much of the questioning he will face. This is a proper way of ensuring that Parliament is respected and that the rights of Parliament to hold the Government to account are maintained.

On the issue relating to the adviser to the Prime Minister on the ministerial code, an announcement is going to be made on that shortly. A recruitment process has been under way. The key is that the lobbying did not pay off; as was clear from the messages between my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the former Prime Minister, the lobbying did not lead to any change.

Then we come on to the terrible muddle the Opposition are in about procurement of ventilators. An Opposition spokesman said:

“The Ventilator Challenge is an example of how UK manufacturers, a world class workforce…have come together”.

They were all in favour of it. The Public Accounts Committee said that this national effort is undoubtedly a “significant achievement” and a “benchmark for procurement”. So what the Prime Minister did was to ensure that things happened. This is the dither and delay of the socialists. They do not want to do things; they want to put the process ahead of succeeding. It is not, as used to be the socialists’ mantra, that the end justifies the means, but that the means justify the ends, so if the ends had been no ventilators but they had followed some endless bureaucratic process that took six months, the socialists would be happy. Instead we got on and did it, and we got 30,000 ventilators in a matter of weeks—that was up from 9,000. It was a phenomenal achievement, and let us praise Dyson for all that he has contributed to British manufacturing, the huge success that he has been and the commitment—£20 million of his own money—that he put towards ventilators. That is a proper patriotic gesture by a man I hold in the highest esteem and we should praise.

As we are praising people, let us also praise Allegra Stratton, who has made a marvellous contribution to the Government and will do so for COP—the conference of the parties—as well. In her various roles, she has succeeded in holding politicians to account. I remember being quizzed by her in one of her various journalistic roles. Indeed, I was “geek of the week” on one occasion on the Peston show. Some Members may think I am geek every week, but I once got that particular award. I note that the office that has been so nicely done up is the Privy Council office. As Lord President of the Council, perhaps I should be putting in a claim to use it for a good and worthy purpose of Privy Council business.

As regards any coalmining planning applications, once called in they are, as the right hon. Lady knows, in a quasi-judicial process and it would be wrong of me to go into the details of them. Let me finish by reiterating the point that if there has not been proper scrutiny, she knows where the failure to scrutinise has come from .

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

There is widespread dismay and outrage across the Kettering constituency that the organiser of a huge Irish Traveller funeral, held right in the middle of Kettering during the covid lockdown in November and attended by 150 people, in clear and flagrant breach of the pandemic regulations, has not been prosecuted. He was served by police with the notice of a £10,000 fine, but the Crown Prosecution Service this week at Northampton magistrates court decided not to pursue the case, and his legal costs are to be reimbursed. In contrast, hundreds of local families who have lost loved ones over the last year have respected the rules and encountered much distress in limiting the number of mourners at funerals. I have already contacted the Solicitor General about this important issue, but can we have a Government statement on the fact that once again, it appears that there is one rule for Gypsies and Travellers and another for everyone else?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am concerned about what my hon. Friend is saying, because, “Be you ever so high, the law is above you”. That is a fundamental principle of justice in this country. I am obviously not familiar with the details of the case that he raises and the CPS is operationally independent in its charging decisions. Cases ought to be decided by the CPS on their own merits, on the tests set by the code for Crown prosecutors. I note, however, that he has already raised this with the Solicitor General and I will pass on his comments to the Attorney General.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

I join the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House in thanking all in the House who have contributed to ensuring that Members have been able to continue to participate virtually. It has not always been a smooth passage and there have often been disagreements about the process, but we have got there. Indeed, I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your part in that process, because you have made so much of this possible.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister indicated that he would “immediately” publish his personal correspondence relating to covid contracts, so will the Leader of the House update the House by telling us what the Government consider to be the meaning of the word “immediately”? When will the Prime Minister actually release this correspondence?

Given that the Prime Minister has promised to “fix” tax issues for billionaires over text message, will the Leader of the House also support a full public inquiry into lobbying practices under this Government and potential breaches of the ministerial code? Perhaps the Government could also advise the 3 million left behind and struggling without any support how they can get the ear of the Prime Minister, or is this only for the elite group with the phone number who are able to influence policy?

It is not just Opposition Members who are making suggestions about some of these issues. As a great believer in honest and fair procurement practices in the UK, I have no doubt that the Leader of the House will be alarmed to read the results of the Transparency International UK report, “Track and Trace”, which concluded that the absence of competition in awarding contracts has been “unjustifiable” and that

“arrangements for enabling scrutiny over the use of taxpayers’ money”—

have been “woefully inadequate” due to “systemic deficiencies in how” the Government

“accounts for the use of public funds”.

Will the Leader of the House now champion tougher action from Government, including backing my Ministerial Interests (Emergency Powers) Bill, to ensure that Government contract decisions are not riddled with crony accusations and that decisions are being taken in the best interests of the public purse?

Finally, as a believer in market forces, I am sure that the UK Government will have a view—I would be keen to know what it is—on the supermarket wars that currently threaten the diversity of chocolate larvae lepidoptera. What will the Government do to support the campaign to free Cuthbert, or do they, in fact, back the protection of the species for Colin?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think the last matter is clearly one for an Adjournment debate, so that every possible ramification of it can be considered.

If I may come to the mainstay of what the hon. Gentleman raised, it is really important that contracts are awarded properly. That is why correspondence will be published and why the contracts will be published as well. A proper process of transparency is taking place, but it is also worth remembering that there was a great deal of urgency. We went from 1% of personal protective equipment being produced domestically to—I think, excluding gloves—70% of PPE being produced domestically. We managed to have an extraordinary success in our vaccine roll-out programme, where we were fleeter of foot than other countries—indeed, of our neighbours in the European Union—and that was because we were able to get on with things. That had widespread political support while it was taking place last year, and people from all parties benefited.

It is worth reminding the House that £135.5 million-worth of Chinese ventilators went to a company that was incorporated not that long ago called Excalibur Healthcare Services. Its chairman, Sir Chris Evans, is a very distinguished biotech entrepreneur and a supporter of the Labour party. He is also a very distinguished and successful businessman and is somebody who is held in the highest regard across the House. He got a contract for a newly incorporated company of a very significant amount of public money not because of cronyism—it would be very odd cronyism to stuff the purses of socialists with gold—but because we needed these goods and we needed them quickly.

We have a very good and strong Public Accounts Committee, the most long-standing Select Committee in this House, which has kept a review of public expenditure for now well over 100 years. It is chaired by a distinguished Member of the Labour party, who is respected in all parts of the House, and the Committee brings forward reports to ensure that expenditure is proper, and I am all in favour of that. It is right that we must examine contracts and how they are awarded, but we should not cast aspersions purely for temporary political advantage, undermining the confidence that people can have in the fundamental honesty of the British state.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) [V]]

Stoke-on-Trent is one of the fastest growing economies and one of the top places for jobs growth in England. Added to that, we have excellent connectivity with the M6 and the A50 corridor; four international airports within 60 minutes; and a 90-minute train ride to London. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with Staffordshire police, Staffordshire chambers of commerce, and Staffordshire North and Stoke-on-Trent citizens advice bureaux, there could be no better second home for the Home Office other than Stoke-on-Trent under the places for growth programme, bringing high-skilled and well-paid jobs for the Stoke-on-Trent talent pool and seeing a former resident, the Home Secretary, return to her adopted city?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I thought that my hon. Friend was about to make an application to become the Home Secretary, rather than move the Home Secretary. The Government are committed to ensuring that the administration of government is less London-centric and to locating more civil service roles and public bodies outside London and into the regions and nations of the United Kingdom. The places for growth programme is working with Departments on their relocation plans and a number of announcements have been made. That includes the Cabinet Office establishing a second headquarters in Glasgow; a joint headquarters for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in East Kilbride; the Department for Transport building on its presence in Leeds and Birmingham; and a new economic campus in Darlington. My hon. Friend should keep on campaigning, and I will pass his message on to fellow Ministers, particularly to the Home Secretary.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us go to the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]]

May I first pass on my deepest sympathy, love and condolences to my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) following the sad passing of her husband, Ray? Mr Speaker, Ray was a long-standing North Tyneside councillor, a fellow Newcastle fan, and a thoroughly lovely man.

Obviously, we are disappointed that there is no time for Backbench Business Committee debates to be scheduled next week, but should any gaps in the Government’s schedule occur before Prorogation next week, I am sure that we could organise debate sponsors to be on standby to fill any such void.

Lastly, after this week’s so-called big six European super league shenanigans, I was delighted to see the Government make their proposal for a fan-led review of football in England. Will the Leader of the House use his good offices to ensure that the review fulfils the Government’s manifesto commitment to being truly fan-led?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I join the hon. Gentleman in passing on our condolences to the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) at a very sad time for her and for her family? We will remember Ray in our prayers.

As regards time for the Backbench Business Committee, next week will really be about sorting out ping-pong. Unless the hon. Gentleman is going to join us in a game of what some call whiff-whaff, we may not necessarily have time for Backbench Business debates.

To come to the fan-led review of football, this will be chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who is herself a very committed footballer and fan of football. She knows everything about the subject very much from the point of view of a fan and will cover the financial stability of the men’s and women’s games, governance and regulation, the merits and the independent regulator, and, crucially to the hon. Gentleman’s point, how fans can have a greater say in the oversight of the game. I think, therefore, that it is a case of ask and you shall be given.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) [V]]

As we move along the road map towards normality, Ministers are rightly reminding the public of the mantra “Hands, face, space”. Does the Leader of the House agree that in future ministerial statements, there should be an additional message to the public, particularly to those visiting tourist areas such as East Yorkshire—namely, “Hands, face, space, but don’t be a disgrace. Take your rubbish and litter away and bin it”? Does he agree that we should be keeping Britain tidy as well as safe?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I remember an occasion when Margaret Thatcher went to St James’s Park to pick up litter—actually, the litter had to be put down for her to pick up because there was not any immediately to hand—and she had the slogan “Bag it and bin it and that way we’ll win it”. Those words and the words of my right hon. Friend are ones that we should all bear in mind.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) [V]]

May I associate myself with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) on the passing of Ray, the husband of my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon)?

The Government’s flagship education recovery scheme, the national tutoring programme, has reached 96% of its target numbers in schools in the south-east and 100% in the south-west but under 60% in the north-east. I share concerns expressed by the director of Schools North East that the Government’s one-size-fits-all approach does not account for the significantly higher levels of long-term disadvantage in regions such as the north-east or regional variations in how well established tutoring is as an intervention. We must see our recovery from covid-19 closing inequality gaps, not broadening them, so can we have a debate in Government time on making education recovery more responsive to local circumstances and trusting school heads to know the best way to support their pupils?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Government are very committed to the levelling-up agenda and therefore ensuring that all parts of the country receive their fair share of support. The hon. Lady raises an important point. I ask her to point out to the Government—via my office, if that would be useful—where there are any blockages, so that the Government can ensure that those are removed, because it is fundamental that we should be fair and level up across the country.

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) [V]]

A year ago today, I asked Parliament’s very first virtual question, and here I am doing so again. Does the Leader of the House agree that, as society reopens and resumes a closer to business-as-usual model, we in Parliament should be doing the same thing in a safe and secure way?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I wish my hon. Friend a very happy birthday? I hope that once he has finished Zooming, he will have an appropriate celebration, possibly leading the way as the public houses reopen outside. I agree with his point: Parliament needs to lead the way, and we need to get back to normal as soon as it is prudent and sensible to do so. I congratulate him on his efforts to hold the Government to account and to carry out scrutiny, and I am glad that he has been doing it, even if Her Majesty’s Opposition feel that they have not been able to scrutinise the Government, but we want to get back to a proper Chamber as soon as possible.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

I have noticed that whenever my colleagues from the SNP have a question for the Prime Minister, regardless of the subject matter, the response always seems to revert at some stage to a tedious and tendentious diatribe against the supposed shortcomings of the Scottish Government. It is quite clear that the Government are keen to unburden themselves in some regards with respect to the Scottish Government’s record. Would the Leader of the House be good enough to make time next week for a general debate in the House on Scottish affairs, in order that Members can explore some of the reasons why voters in Scotland seem to be on course to re-elect the SNP Government and sack the Conservative Opposition?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As it seems that the SNP has been doing its best to make the Borgias look respectable in recent weeks, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman would wish to have such a debate, but it would be an opportunity to point out how the SNP Government are failing Scotland in terms of its education and its policing. The SNP Government recently stated that they would have done just as well with the vaccine roll-out by themselves, when under a year ago, the SNP spokesman was asking why they had not joined the European scheme and whether it was a great failure not to have joined it. So a debate on the failings of the SNP, its lack of success and its lack of drive in its position in charge of the Government of Scotland would be one that would have many speakers and there would be a great deal to say. However, over the next few days we have to deal with ping-pong with the House of Lords, so I regret to say that there will not be time for that pleasurable discussion.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

May I also wish my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) a very happy birthday? On this celebratory day of the one-year anniversary of the hybrid Parliament, may I thank the digital team, your team, Mr Speaker, the Doorkeepers and the Clerks for remaining physically present in Parliament during the pandemic? Will my right hon. Friend update the House on plans for the physical return of Members to this House so that we can all grace these green Benches?

[Mr Speaker]

Careful, Leader.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Between now and 21 July, there will be discussions as to what can be done in line with the changes taking place across the rest of the country and whether, when places of entertainment are allowed to have every other place full, this House will be able to do that. However, Mr Speaker will rely on the advice of Public Health England for that. All the restrictions fall by the motions we have in front of us around 21 June, at which point we will be back to normal. However, I would say to Members that they are entitled to come into the Chamber. There is a limit on seating, but that limit is not used on most occasions, and I would no longer discourage anybody from coming into this House. I think this House is better when it is physical. It is more immediate, and the quality of our debate is significantly improved.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

May I also thank you, Mr Speaker, your team and the House authorities for keeping us all safe during a difficult year?

Too many deaf people are still facing social exclusion, and there is no more timely example of that than our still waiting for a British Sign Language interpreter at Government press briefings more than a year into the pandemic. British Sign Language is used by over 151,000 people in the UK. However, 18 years after it was formally recognised as a language by the UK Government, it has still not received legal status. Will the Leader of the House outline when the Government plan to bring forward legislation finally to give BSL legal status?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is worth pointing out to the hon. Lady that, under your auspices, Mr Speaker, there is sign language for some parts of our parliamentary proceedings, routinely including Prime Minister’s questions. Whether it can be used more, and whether there is sufficient demand to make that worth while, is being looked at. It is taken seriously by the House authorities, and the broadcasters also provide it as a service. Great steps are being made. In terms of the legislative agenda, we will have a Queen’s Speech quite soon and that will contain the agenda for the coming Session.

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) [V]]

I congratulate Lord McFall on his election as Lord Speaker and offer my sincere condolences to the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) on the death of her husband Ray. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on funding for research into motor neurone disease and related illnesses? This disease has a devastating impact on the lives of sufferers and their families as I understand from a number of my constituents. Further funding is vital to continue the advances being made in the treatment of MND and to find a possible cure.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an unquestionably important issue. The Government recognise the immense challenges faced by people with motor neurone disease and are currently working on ways to boost significantly further research into the disease. In the past five years, the taxpayer has spent £54 million on motor neurone disease research through the National Institute for Health Research and UK Research and Innovation via the Medical Research Council. The 2019 Conservative manifesto committed to doubling funding for dementia and neurodegenerative disease research, including motor neurone disease research. The Government are putting plans in place on how to deliver on that commitment, but I encourage my hon. Friend to seek an Adjournment debate to discuss it further.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

In recent summers in Nottingham, our excellent community sector, supported by the city council, has on a shoestring put together brilliant activities and food programmes for local children. This year, the city has secured significant resources to make that programme even better, so that it operates all year round and reaches thousands of local children. We want groups to come forward to be part of it. Can we have a debate in Government time about the importance of excellent holiday activities for our young children?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Holiday activities are extremely important for children, particularly during the long summer holidays, and I am delighted to hear that charitable activity in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is allowing people to do the sorts of things that children want to do and enjoy doing. In my area, Longleat is an enormously popular safari park. People like to see the lions, tigers, giraffes and elephants—[Interruption.] I do not think there are any buffalo there, but there may be. Ensuring that there are enjoyable activities for children in school holidays is admirable, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the efforts he is making in that regard.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con) [V]]

Over the past few weeks, I have been knocking on quite a few doors in the Chantry area of Ipswich, where the Leader of the House has quite a few admirers, as it happens. The key issue is the growth in antisocial behaviour and potential drug dealing and taking in the area, particularly in Stonelodge Park. We know that increased police presence and regular patrols are part of deterring that kind of illicit activity, and I welcome the extra 45 police officers, but would the Leader of the House find space in Government time for a debate about the national police funding formula, which I and the police and crime commissioner, Tim Passmore, believe is not fair for Suffolk?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am delighted to hear that I have a following in Chantry. There is also a Chantry in Somerset, so it is clearly a very good name for a place.

The police funding formula remains the most reliable mechanism that we have to distribute core grant funding to police and crime commissioners. The funding settlement will be £15.8 billion in 2021-22, up £600 million on the previous year. Obviously, it is then about how that money is spent, and getting more police on the beat—I am delighted to hear that there are 45 more in my hon. Friend’s constituency—is key. The presence of a police officer is a sure way of reducing crime and antisocial behaviour.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

On behalf of a constituent battling repeated malicious allegations, and another who, out of the blue, has been deducted for a 30-year-old social fund loan with no proof that it ever existed, can we have an opportunity to press Department for Work and Pensions Ministers on why it is taking, on average, a ludicrous 63 weeks for a complaint to be allocated to a caseworker? If I send the Leader of the House the details of those two cases, would he take it up with a Minister for me?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Of course, I will do whatever I can—63 weeks seems too long.

[Mr Speaker]

Let’s have the love-in with Ian Liddell-Grainger.

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) [V]]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My right hon. Friend and I are both committed democrats who believe that the voice of the people always deserves to be heard. In the Somerset County Council area, there will soon be a referendum to test public opinion about the rival plans for local government reform. I think my right hon. Friend and I would prefer that it were the whole of Somerset, but that is beyond the power of the council. The Secretary of State, by letter, said that this is a distraction, but I believe he is quite wrong. Elections to the county council have been shelved, and I am afraid the Government’s consultation was cheap, unfair and totally indifferent to the views of the residents. The chance to vote is now vital, and the Government ought to listen very carefully to the result before making any decision. Lawyers are spoiling for a fight about this, but democracy is an issue that cries out to be debated as soon as it can in this House first.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Vox populi, vox dei, but I refer my hon. Friend to what I said last week: it does not include the whole county of Somerset, and I think that is a great mistake. Somerset’s history goes back into the mists of time. It is one of the oldest counties in the country. As a whole, it is a complete, entire, perfect county that was cut up by Ted Heath in the 1970s to the disadvantage of people across the whole county. I would like to see the whole thing put back together. If only we could have the expertise of Humpty Dumpty.

[Mr Speaker]

You can take Lancashire on at the same time.

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]]

May I offer my sincere condolences to the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) on the death of her husband?

I have previously asked the Leader of the House about a promised Bill on access to cash, which has not materialised. Can he confirm that it will be included in the upcoming Queen’s Speech to provide certainty to those—mainly vulnerable people—who rely on cash? Will the Government agree to back the Banking Services (Post Offices) Bill, lodged by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), to place responsibility on banks to provide their services through post office branches?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think that for me to pre-empt the Queen’s Speech would be lèse-majesté, but I can say that the Government recognise the importance of cash to the daily lives of millions of people across the United Kingdom, particularly those in vulnerable groups, and that we are committed to protecting access to cash for those who need it. The Government held a call for evidence on access to cash, which closed on 25 November 2020 and which set out our legislative aims—the legislative aims are there—for protecting access to cash throughout the United Kingdom. It sought views on cash withdrawal and deposit-taking facilities, cash acceptance and regulatory responsibilities for maintaining cash access. Although I cannot give the hon. Lady the direct promise that she asks for, I can say that the issue is very much at the forefront of the Government’s mind.

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) [V]]

As we speak, the Foreign Secretary is being held to account by the Select Committee on International Development, following his written statement late last night. One thing in his statement that was rather confusing, because it is difficult to check like with like, is the fact that all budgets are being slashed dramatically. We know that the Foreign Secretary and others have decided that the 0.7%, which is enshrined in law, will become 0.5%, but we really ought to have a vote on that to see whether such an incredible slashing of funds is the will of Parliament. Will the Leader of the House tell us when we can have that vote? I know that various people think that we do not need one, but the 0.7% is enshrined in law. We cannot just say, “It is enshrined in law, but we will take no notice of it.” When will we have a vote, please?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The law is very clear and envisages circumstances in which the 0.7% target will not be possible to reach, for a variety of reasons including economic ones that may affect the Government’s ability to meet it. It sets out the requirement for the Secretary of State to make a report to Parliament, to be accountable to Parliament in the event that the target is not reached. The law is being followed—what Parliament decreed is being followed—and that is, of course, the right thing to do.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I have been horrified by reports from constituents—frontline customer-facing service workers across a range of sectors from retail and call centres to rail staff—of the abuse and violence that they have faced from customers. This is not a local issue. In polling commissioned by the Institute of Customer Service in 2020, 1,000 customer-facing workers reported increasing levels of hostility directed towards them in recent years, with more than half having experienced abuse from customers during the pandemic. This is clearly unacceptable. When Parliament is prorogued shortly, the private Member’s Bill sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris)—the Assaults on Retail Workers (Offences) Bill—will fall, despite widespread public support. I hope that the Leader of the House will outline when we can have a debate in Government time on increasing protections for service workers in law in line with protections that emergency service workers receive. Abuse should never be part of the job.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady raises a point that concerns hon. Members across the House. People working in retail ought to be protected, and are protected, by the full force of the law. The Queen’s Speech debate is an opportunity to raise a very wide range of issues; that opportunity will be provided once Parliament is recalled, and there will be a new ballot for private Members’ Bills for the next Session. I hope that we will get through all 13 Fridays in more normal time than we have had over the past year.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

May I add my deep condolences to the lovely hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon)?

Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House set out what assessment he has made of the cost and safety of the enormous amount of mechanical and engineering work that is required to restore this beautiful UNESCO world heritage site, the Palace of Westminster? Will he confirm that he agrees that although taxpayers’ value for money is absolutely at the heart of the restoration project, so too must be the importance of a contingency arrangement for our democracy to keep functioning should there be a disastrous fire, asbestos leakage or other disaster during such time as any restoration were to take place?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend obviously knows a great deal about this subject. She will be aware that the sponsor body is currently drawing up its business plan, which will take into account all the risks. I can give my right hon. Friend the important reassurance that a great deal of fire safety work has already been done, so there are now 7,112 automatic fire-detection devices, 4,126 sprinkler heads in the basement of the Palace and 8 miles of pipe for a new sprinkler system in the basement, to ensure that in the event of a fire, life can be protected. That work has been completed in recent years to a high standard to ensure safety.

As regards contingencies, it is not normal to discuss their details on the Floor of the House, as my right hon. Friend will know, but obviously there will be some consequences of how we have operated over the past year when it comes to working out how any contingency could or should be carried out.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

I too send my love and condolences to my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon).

I asked the Lord Chancellor how many civil service jobs were moving to York and was given some vague percentage; however, a subsequent question indicated that the Department did not know. It appears that the Government’s distribution of job relocation and funding bids lacks transparency. With the levelling-up fund and the UK shared prosperity fund soon to be administered, and with no matrices or frameworks having been published, will the Leader of the House raise my concerns with his Cabinet colleagues and ask them to come to the House before the recess to make a statement on their methodology—if indeed there is one?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As we discussed earlier, Government spending of taxpayers’ money is always carefully examined by various Committees in this House and by proper procedures within Government. The £4.8 billion levelling-up fund will be an important way of ensuring that economic prosperity is possible throughout the country and that we build back better.

The hon. Lady made a detailed point on the Ministry of Justice’s moving to York and seeks a detailed answer; I will try to help her to get as detailed an answer as is available.

[Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) [V]]

We have important local elections coming up, which inevitably leads to more residents seeking information and clarity on council services and who is the best value for their votes. In Nottinghamshire, we have contrasting fortunes: the Conservative-run county council has been able to support local people throughout the pandemic, while protecting services and balancing the books, whereas Labour-run Nottingham City Council has just about bankrupted itself, and residents will pick up the pieces. The money that the city council has blown on Robin Hood Energy alone could have built leisure centres in Mansfield or regenerated our high street. Will my right hon. Friend make time to debate these failings at the Labour city council, to aid our understanding of how it managed to make quite such a mess of it, openly assess the impact on taxpayers and ensure that such wasteful incompetence cannot happen again?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend makes an exceptionally good point. Every week, business questions throws up another example of appalling mismanagement by socialist councils. It is vital that Members of this House hold their local authorities to account; they have in this place a special and valuable platform that they must use for their constituents’ benefit. It is remarkable how many Members happen to complain about hare-brained energy schemes from socialist local authorities of both the red and yellow variety. Perhaps the people suffering under the red yoke in Nottingham might look enviously to the greener grass of the Conservative county council and use their vote accordingly on 6 May.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) [V]]

The all-party parliamentary group on disability, which I chair, is committed to ensuring that MPs support opportunity in employment for all. As a vital step, in early June we are undertaking an online Disability Confident workshop—supported by the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work and the Department for Work and Pensions—through which we hope to sign up at least 100 MPs’ offices as accredited Disability Confident employers. Will the Leader of the House support this work, alongside further progress and debate on disability inclusion in Parliament?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It would be an honour to do so. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this. I do a podcast on why Parliament works, and I did an interview with my noble Friend Lord Hague, who introduced the Disability Discrimination Act in 1995, which has been so important in improving disability rights and employment opportunities for the disabled. Anything I can do through the office of the Leader of the House to further the work that he started, I would be privileged to do.

[Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)]

Eston swimming baths have been closed since the start of the pandemic, and will sadly remain closed for at least another year because of the state of disrepair, which it is estimated will cost almost £3 million to put right. I have said from the start that I am committed to having a swimming pool in TS6 for the people of TS6, and I am working with the council on a plan for a brand-new pool there so that everyone in South Bank, Normanby, Teesville, Grangetown and Eston can have a pool that they can use for decades to come. Does the Leader of the House agree with me on the importance of community swimming pools, and will he make time for a debate on this in the next Session?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work he has been doing to save the Eston baths, and I know that he has raised this matter with Ministers. He is an absolutely brilliant champion for his constituents in Redcar, and for ensuring that they are kept in the swim, so to speak. This is important work and the Government have provided unprecedented support to businesses throughout the pandemic to ensure that these vital facilities remain for people to enjoy after the pandemic has come to an end. This includes the £100 million national leisure recovery fund and £270 million from Sport England.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) [V]]

First, I would like to offer my commiserations and sympathy to my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) on her recent tragic loss.

Over the past few months and years, we have seen the behaviour of Prime Minister Modi of India becoming increasingly violent and aggressive towards the people that he and his Government see as their opponents. There are still eight journalists held in prison on charges of sedition, a number of politicians are also being held, and 100 people are still missing after the farmers’ protest. This comes on top of all the appalling behaviour by the Government and the Indian Army in Kashmir. We know that talks are coming up between our Prime Minister and his opposite number, so could the Leader of the House confirm that the Prime Minister will be raising human rights issues, as well as trade, at that meeting and that he will then report back to the House of Commons?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

India is a most important ally of the United Kingdom. It is the largest democracy in the world, and it has the rule of law in addition to being a democracy. It is a nation with which we want to build and maintain the friendliest relationships in the coming decades and, indeed, centuries. Of course, with all countries with which we have close relationships and friendships, it is right to remind them of the high standards that are expected of nations of the standing of India, one of the most important nations in the world, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will always mention this when he is meeting foreign leaders.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) [V]]

May I add my condolences to the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon)? She is a dear friend from across the House.

This week, my constituency celebrates the opening of the Congleton link road. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating and thanking all who have worked on it, including community leaders, past and present councillors, council officers, contractors and the business people who worked so hard to secure it? It will help to reduce congestion, make getting to school safer, shorten commute times and improve air quality, and it was facilitated not least by the investment of some £50 million from national Government. Does not this demonstrate that this Government are committed to delivering infrastructure improvements in the north for the real-life daily benefit of the people who live here?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

In the list of people who deserve thanks, my hon. Friend forgot to include the most distinguished Member of Parliament, who worked tirelessly to ensure that the link road was built. She brought people together, campaigned with them and made sure that it happened. She is looking slightly embarrassed as I say this, but I think she really does deserve a good deal of credit herself. This fits in with that the Government are trying to do. We will spend more than £600 billion of taxpayers’ money over the next five years, and £19 billion in transport next year alone. This is part of the levelling-up approach and building back better to ensure that the whole country benefits, and I am delighted that Congleton is benefiting from a bypass.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

Perfect Getaways, an independent travel agent that is based in my constituency, is a perfect example of how a small family-owned business can grow and be a success, but of course the continued uncertainty around international travel has severely impacted its income. Although being able to access the restart grants for non-essential retailers is welcome, at the moment more holidays are being cancelled than booked, which is obviously causing it real difficulty—far more than for a lot of other non-essential retail outlets. Can we please have a debate on what more can be done to help those in the travel and tourism industry, who really need some sector-specific support for a considerable period yet?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the case of Perfect Getaways. It must be really difficult for people in the travel industry at the moment, because there is still so much uncertainty. We do not know about the progression of the disease in other countries. We do not know clearly how safe it will be to travel. The red list is currently going up rather than down with the addition of India later this week. It is difficult for businesses in that category and he is right to raise the matter. He may want an Adjournment debate in the first instance, but I am sure the House will return to the matter in the new Session.

[Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) [V]]

Tomorrow, residents in Carshalton and Wallington and across England will celebrate St George’s Day. Although many celebrations cannot take place this year due to covid restrictions, could we have a debate to mark this day and celebrate all that is great about this green and pleasant land?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This week is actually a very interesting one for English saints’ days, because the 19th is that of St Alfege, who was murdered by the Danes for refusing to pay extra tax—a saint I have always particularly admired—and the 21st is that of St Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, who had a great row with William Rufus over the powers of the Church against the state. Then of course there is St George, who famously slew the dragon and did other great and noble things, and became our patron saint really in the reign of Edward III. He is the patron of the Order of the Garter as well, and a chivalrous saint, or very much thought to be. We should celebrate and discuss the great history of our nation and the interesting agglomeration of saints who pray for us on a daily basis, praying for the success not just of England but of the whole of the United Kingdom. St Andrew, St David and St Patrick—all the great saints—should be celebrated and commemorated.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Today is Earth Day, so it seems an appropriate time to reflect on the environmental damage caused to marine habitats by the clearing of unexploded bombs and mines at sea, which is highly disruptive to marine mammals which rely on their auditory systems for navigation and communication. Indeed, such damage threatens their very survival. Will the Leader of the House make a statement as to when the Government will progress regulations to favour the deflagration technique, which is several hundred times quieter than the current method of clearing unexploded bombs and mines at sea?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady is obviously right to be concerned for marine mammals such as dolphins, whales and porpoises, who, when seen, give such pleasure to people, and are an important part of the marine environment. I know that there are campaigns in relation to how munitions that have been dumped at sea are best destroyed, and I will happily pass on her representations.

[Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con) [V]]

Fly-tipping is a blight on all our local towns and villages, from Haslingden to Belthorn and Great Harwood to Huncoat. Locally we have some amazing community groups that are working to keep our streets clean, like the Baxenden Wombles, the Ossy litter pickers and Rossendale’s Civic Pride. Unfortunately, our Labour-run councils clean up an area time and again at the expense of the taxpayer, but we fail to see a tough stance taken through fines and prosecutions. Can we have a debate in Government time on how we make sure that our local councils take stronger action against the minority who ruin it for all residents such as mine in Hyndburn and Haslingden?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend raises a point similar to that raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight). Local councils do have that responsibility, and the availability of tips provided by the council can be very important in deterring fly-tipping, because if it is easy to dispose of waste, most people will do it, but if it is difficult and expensive, that may be a more complex issue and may lead to fly-tipping. It is, as I say, a council responsibility; but fly-tipping is wrong, it is illegal, and people should dispose of their waste properly and not put costs on to taxpayers by disposing of it illegally—and the law should of course be enforced.

Speaker's Statement

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

11:34

[Mr Speaker]

I have a short statement to make about Select Committees. On 24 March 2020, the House passed an Order allowing for the virtual participation in Select Committee meetings and giving the Chairs associated powers to make reports. Under the powers I was given in the Order, I notify the House that I am extending the Order until Monday 21 June.

Let us now make the necessary arrangements. I suspend the House for three minutes.

11:35

Sitting suspended.

Commonwealth War Graves Commission: Historical Inequalities Report

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

11:38

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the special committee review into the historical actions of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, when it was the Imperial War Graves Commission and subsequently.

I start by placing on the record my thanks and gratitude to the committee that compiled this comprehensive report, especially its chair, Sir Tim Hitchens, and contributing academics Dr George Hay, Dr John Burke and Professor Michèle Barrett. I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) who, alongside the makers of the Channel 4 documentary on this subject, provided the impetus for the establishment of the independent committee.

Today the committee’s findings are published. They make for sober reading. The first world war was a horrendous loss of life. People of all class and race from all nations suffered a great tragedy, which we rightly remember every year on Remembrance Sunday. Just over 100 years ago, what emerged from that atrocity was a belief by the survivors that all those who lost their lives deserved to be commemorated.

When the Imperial War Graves Commission was established, its founding principle was the equality of treatment in death. Whatever an individual’s rank in social or military life and whatever their religion, they would be commemorated identically. Unfortunately, the work of this report shows that it fell short in delivering on that principle. The IWGC relied on others to seek out the bodies of the dead, and where it could not find them, it worked with the offices of state to produce lists of those who did not return and remained unaccounted for.

Given the pressures and confusion spun by such a war, in many ways it is hardly surprising that mistakes were made at both stages. What is surprising and disappointing, however, is the number of mistakes—the number of casualties commemorated unequally, the number commemorated without names, and the number otherwise entirely unaccounted for. That is not excusable. In some circumstances, there was little the IWGC could do. With neither bodies nor names, general memorials were the only way in which some groups might be commemorated at the time.

None the less, there are examples where the organisation also deliberately overlooked the evidence that might have allowed it to find those names. In others, commission officials in the 1920s were happy to work with local administrations on projects across the empire that ran contrary to the principles of equality in death. Elsewhere, it is clear that commission officials pursued agendas and sought evidence or support locally to endorse 67 courses of action that jeopardised those same principles. In the small number of cases where commission officials had greater say in the recovery and marking of graves, overarching imperial ideology connected to racial and religious differences was used to divide the dead and treat them unequally in ways that were impossible in Europe.

The report concludes that post-world war one, in parts of Africa, the middle east and India, the commission often compromised its principles and failed to commemorate the war dead equally. Unlike their European counterparts, the graves of up to 54,000 mostly Indian, east African, west African, Egyptian and Somali casualties were not marked by individual headstones. Some were remembered through inscriptions on memorials. The names of others were only recorded in registers, rather than memorialised in stone. A further 116,000 personnel, mostly east African and Egyptian, were not named or possibly not commemorated at all.

There can be no doubt that prejudice played a part in some of the commission’s decisions. In some cases, the IWGC assumed that the communities of forgotten personnel would not recognise or value individual forms of commemoration. In other cases, it was simply not provided with the names or burial locations.

On behalf of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and the Government of the time and today, I want to apologise for the failures to live up to the founding principles all those years ago and express deep regret that it has taken so long to rectify the situation. While we cannot change the past, we can make amends and take action.

As part of that, the commission has accepted all the recommendations of the special committee. In the interests of time I will group these into three themes. First, the commission will geographically and chronologically extend the search in the historical record for inequalities in commemoration and act on what is found. Secondly, the commission will renew its commitment to equality in commemoration through the building of physical or digital commemorative structures. Finally, the commission will use its own online presence and wider education activities to reach out to all the communities of the former British empire touched by the two world wars to make sure that their hidden history is brought to life. Over the coming six months, the commission will be assembling a global and diverse community of external experts who can help make that happen.

There is also more the Government specifically can do. The Ministry of Defence I lead will be determinedly proactive in standing for the values of equality, supporting diversity and investing in all our people. There is always more to be done, and that is why I welcome the Wigston review into inappropriate behaviours and recently took the rare decision to let service personnel give evidence as part of the inquiry into women in the armed forces led by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) through the Defence Committee.

Furthermore, to honour the contribution to our armed forces by our friends from the Commonwealth and Nepal, the Home Secretary and I will shortly be launching a public consultation on proposals to remove the visa settlement fees for non-UK service personnel who choose to settle in the UK.

The historical failings identified in the report must be acknowledged and acted upon, and they will be. However, recognising the mistakes of the past should not diminish the Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s groundbreaking achievements today. The recommendations of the special committee should be welcomed by us all. They are not just an opportunity for the commission to complete its task and right historical wrongs; they point out what an amazing thing it is to serve our country and our allies.

The amazing thing I know from being a soldier is the relationships that are forged on operations. True soldiers are agnostic to class, race and gender, because the bond that holds us together is a bond forged in war. When on operations, we share the risk, share the sorrow and rely on each other to get through the toughest of times. The friendships I made in my service are still strong.

It was those common bonds that lay behind the Imperial War Graves Commission’s principles, and it is truly sad that on the occasions identified by the report those principles were not followed. I feel it is my duty as a former soldier to do right by those who gave their lives in the first world war across the Commonwealth and to take what necessary steps we can to rectify the situation. The publication of this report is the beginning, not the end, and I look forward to working with my colleagues across the House to ensure that the CWGC receives the support and resources it needs to take forward this important piece of work.

11:46

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the advance copy of it. I thank the commission for its advance briefing, which a number of hon. Members received before today.

Above all, I thank the Secretary of State for his apology on behalf of both the Government of the time and the commission. This is an important moment for the commission and the country in coming to terms with past injustices and dedicating ourselves to future action.

None of this would have happened without my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). His documentary “Unremembered” laid bare the early history of the Imperial War Graves Commission and exposed its failure to live up to its founding aim of equality of treatment for all war dead. I pay tribute to Channel 4 and David Olusoga for producing the documentary and to Professor Michèle Barrett, whose research underpinned that work.

Perhaps in another era, we would have been tempted to leave it there, but rightly the commission did not. Indeed, my right hon. Friend would not have let the commission leave it there. The report is a credit to the commission of today, but its content is a great discredit to the commission and the Britain of a century ago. An estimated 45,000 to 54,000 casualties—predominantly Indian, east African, west African, Egyptian and Somali personnel—were commemorated unequally. A further 116,000 casualties, and potentially as many as 350,000, were not commemorated by name or not commemorated at all. In the words of the special committee that produced the report, the commission failed to do what it was set up to do:

“the IWGC was responsible for or complicit in decisions outside of Europe that compromised its principles and treated war dead differently and often unequally…This history needs to be corrected and shared, and the unfinished work of the 1920s needs to be put right where possible.”

This issue has been part of Britain’s blind spot to our colonial past, and we have been too slow as a country to recognise and honour fully the regiments and troops drawn from Africa, Asia and the Caribbean. Today is a reminder of the great contribution and sacrifice that so many from these countries have made to forging modern, multicultural Britain.

What matters now is what happens next. The follow-up to the report’s recommendations cannot be part of business-as-before for the commission. What role will the Secretary of State play as chair of the commission? Is he satisfied that the commission has sufficient resources to do this additional work and, if not, will he make more available? What role will Britain’s embassy staff, including our defence attachés, play in communicating this public apology, researching new names and telling the wider story of the sacrifice that communities in these countries made during world war one? When can we expect the completion of the investigation into the way the commission commemorated the dead from these countries during the second world war, and what commitment will he make today to report to Parliament on the commission’s progress on those goals?

Additionally, we welcome the Secretary of State’s pre-announcement of the consultation on a scheme to end the injustice of Commonwealth and Nepalese soldiers paying twice for their British citizenship. It is something we and the British Legion have campaigned for, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who is not on the call list today, has led and championed that cause. Can the Secretary of State say exactly when the consultation will be launched?

In conclusion, no apology can atone for the injustice, the indignity and the suffering set out in this report. The Secretary of State spoke today as a soldier. It was a soldier, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough West, who, speaking about the commission in this Chamber more than 100 years ago, said:

“We served in a common cause, we suffered equal hardships, we took equal risks, and we desired that if we fell we should be buried together under one general system and in one comradeship of death.”—[Official Report, 17 December 1919; Vol. 123, c. 500.]

Today, belatedly, we aim to commemorate in full the sacrifice of many thousands who died for our country in the first world war and who have not yet been fully honoured. We will remember them.

[Mr Wallace]

I thank the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) for both his tone and his support for the whole House’s efforts. Obviously, it was the almost single-handed drive of the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) that got this higher up the agenda, even though, as I think he rightly credits himself, some of the academics and the programme makers made a step change in that. I want to repeat my regret that it has taken so long. None of us were here in the 1920s, but many of us have been here for the last 30, 40 or 50 years.

It is a deep point of regret for me that, in my own education, what I was taught of the first world war predominately boiled down to the Somme and poets, with very little about the contribution from the Commonwealth countries and the wider—at the time—British empire. As I go around the world as Defence Secretary, it is remarkable to be reminded of those contributions. In some parts of the world, there are graves and places to commemorate them. I went to my own father’s base, where he fought during the Malayan emergency—now Malaysia—to see the Gurkha cemetery. Men died both to defeat communism and protect Malaysia, but also on behalf of Britain, right up until the early 1970s. I think it is important to remember that we have excluded a lot of that from our children’s education, and we absolutely must rectify that.

To address the points of the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne, I am absolutely happy to provide regular updates either in written form in the Library or indeed, on occasion, to come to the House to make a statement of update on progress. As the report itself says, some of these recommendations can be quickly delivered, and some will take time. For example, the investigation into the second world war commemoration and everything else is ongoing. I will make sure that the commission knows not only that it has my support, but that we will hold it to account in delivering that. I will seek regular quarterly updates from the commission on the progress it makes, and in turn update the House.

On how we will communicate with and make sure we work with Commonwealth countries, this is not just about an audience here, but about all the people in those countries. Only recently, I was talking to my Kenyan counterpart—I visited Kenya again and, indeed, visited Somalia—and it is important both that the people there understand the sacrifice of their fellow citizens and that we honour them as well.

As we speak, our defence attaché network, ambassadors and other officials around the world are communicating the report to host countries. With some of them we engaged earlier—with countries such as Kenya, for example—and we have already been working on memorials and things we can do together. We have been making sure that they understand the contents of this report, and we will continue to use that network.

As for funding and future steps, I am absolutely open to all suggestions about what more we can do for education and for commemoration. At the moment, the commission says that it is satisfied that it has the budget, but I do not rule out looking at more funding for it if that is required. Its current income is £52 million, with a range of Commonwealth countries contributing to the funding, but I am not ruling that out, and I would be open to sensible suggestions that make the difference.

As I said, I will continue to update the House and make sure that we can hold the commission to account and that the House can hold me to account in my position as chair of that commission. We should take this as the start point, not the end.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

On 15 June 1955, a small force commanded by RAF Regiment officers, including my father, crawled into the Wadi Hatib in Aden protectorate. They were ambushed. The commanding officer was killed. Another British officer was killed, and six Arab soldiers were killed. My father took over command. The six Arab soldiers are unknown, except the Arab officer; he got a posthumous Military Cross, as did the commanding officer and my father. There is no record of the other five Arab soldiers who gave their lives for this country. So I entirely endorse the recommendations and conclusions of the CWGC report. Mindful of the fact that we do not pay any attention to graves from the Boer war or wars before 1900—they are just left to go to rack and ruin—how long will we be able to sustain the brilliant efforts of the commission to maintain graves from the second world war onwards?

[Mr Wallace]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He and I share the same thing: some of the sadness and anger that I feel from this report is driven out of being a soldier. He and I know what it is like to be on operations, and it is a great leveller—that is one of the strengths of military service. People you thought were not brave turn out to be brave, and people you thought were brave turn out not to be so. You realise that there are different skills that help you get through things, and it is never linked to your class or your colour; it is linked to all the other qualities that people have. First and foremost, it surprises you. It angers me that brothers in arms in those days—predominantly the brethren—were forgotten, for whatever reason, and that must not happen again.

The Commonwealth War Graves Commission, as it is today, does an amazing job. Any Members who have attended the numerous graveyards or sites around the world will have seen the effort that has gone into them, sometimes in quite hostile countries. I do not think that there is any ambition to draw that down. In fact, in today’s world, we are more and more of the view that commemoration is very important for learning, to avoid problems in the future, so I think it will go on. We will continue to fund it and support it, and I know that Members across the House who sit on its governing body will continue to do a first-class job.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) [V]]

With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, may I congratulate the former MP for West Dunbartonshire, John McFall, a son of the Rock of Dumbarton, on his elevation to Speaker of the other place? While he knows that I am opposed to an unelected Chamber, he is a dedicated public servant, and I count him as a very good friend.

I thank the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) for all the work that they have done and the Secretary of State for his words, which I am sure will start the process of healing for the descendants of those who gave so much for a state that did not seem to value that sacrifice at the time. As the grand-nephew of James Timlin of County Mayo, whose name is found on the war memorial of Tyne Cot, having fallen on 29 December 1918, let me acknowledge the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.

That said, there is something of a grim irony in this report coming so close to one on racism, which we heard about just the other week. It makes me wonder about what the Secretary of State just said. I do not believe for a moment that he does not believe that there has been a great wrong committed here. I just wonder whether he can somehow address the distinct cognitive dissonance that all Opposition Members feel when they hear it said.

There is another truth that is revealed in a report such as this one. Although we have become used to the Windrush post-war framing of immigration and diversity on these islands, is it not the case that people of many cultures have fought for, if not enjoyed the benefit of, our freedoms for an awful lot longer than that? We must think of the hundreds of thousands of Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and animists, and those of no religion, who have not been commemorated because they did not fit the white ideal of what is supposed to fit into uniform. It is important that those of all faiths and none are assured that they are valued not only in our armed forces but in the police, the NHS or wherever they serve. The Secretary of State can be assured of the support of all Members of my party should he wish to do that.

[Mr Wallace]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments, including those about the elevation of the former Member for Dumbarton. Those of us who knew him in this House will be pleased for him.

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and I refer him to the points that I made earlier. What conforms to uniform and what makes a good soldier are all the qualities that I talked about earlier. It is not about colour, religion or the many other things that have been used to discriminate in the past. I hope this report is a catalyst that reminds people that many people gave their lives for this country and, supposedly, for the values that should have been agnostic to who they were and where they came from. If we are going to honour them through this report, we must do so by putting it right and making sure it does not happen again.

In the present, as Defence Secretary, I have to do much more to make sure we recruit more people from backgrounds other than the white background that we talk about—from all parts of our culture and society. That actually adds to the capability of our armed forces; it does not detract. We are sorely missing the right numbers of people to continue to make our armed forces the best in the world.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

I welcome the statement, and I publicly thank the commission for its excellent work over many years. I, too, have visited several sites. What challenges does the Secretary of State see for sites located further afield? My sense is that the sites in western Europe, the UK and the Falklands are easily maintained and will be safe for the future, but are there particular difficulties that may lie ahead for sites located in Africa, across the far east and in more far-flung places?

[Mr Wallace]

My hon. Friend raises one of the key challenges in maintaining sites, sometimes in places that have been quite hostile. One of the strengths of how the modern-day Commonwealth War Graves Commission does its job is that it uses local staff and engages locally. Indeed, it is supported by the Department and the defence diplomatic network in working with host Governments. I am, in a sense, more optimistic, because I think this report will help open the door further for commemorating, finding and maintaining some of those sites. If we come along and say to the host countries, “Hands up, this is what we could have done better. This is what we didn’t do right,” we have a far greater chance of collectively being able to commemorate those people and educate their populations and our population about the contribution that was made.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

This is most definitely a watershed moment in the life of this country. I put on record my thanks to Professor Michèle Barrett, David Olusoga and Channel 4 for their work on this documentary. I associate myself with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), and I thank the Secretary of State for his words.

For all of us in the Chamber—this is still the case in this country—when we think of the first world war, we think of the western front, the poems of Wilfred Owen and the battle of the Somme. We do not think of where the first bullets were fired in the first world war, which were, in fact, in Africa, in the east African campaign. On this sombre, but important, day, I am thinking of the King’s African Rifles and the many, many thousands of men who were dragged from their villages to be in the Carrier Corps on behalf of the then British Empire. There is no higher service than to die for your country in war, and it is the case that every single culture on the planet honours those who die in those circumstances. It is a great travesty and a stain and a shame that this country failed to do that for black and brown people across Africa, India and the middle east, but we have come to this very, very important moment, 100 years on, and I thank the Secretary of State for his leadership and the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for the work that it has done to get us to this point.

May I just say to the Secretary of State that further resources will be necessary, particularly in those countries, to commemorate in the appropriate way. Necessary resources will also be needed to revisit the archives in those countries to find names where there are names, but to appropriately commemorate where those names do not exist. We use the word “whitewash” for a reason. Let there be no more whitewashing. The unremembered will be remembered and future generations of young people in our own country and the Commonwealth will understand their sacrifice.

[Mr Wallace]

On the right hon. Gentleman’s last point, it is, “will, should and must understand their sacrifice”. That is really important. Exactly as he said, it was the east African campaign that saw the early salvos of the first world war. Was I taught about that at school? No. How many in this House were? Probably almost none at all. I have already worked closely with my Kenyan counterpart and I will continue to do so, and I speak regularly to her about this. The report points towards things such as bursaries, education and, indeed, working with the archives. Both the commission and others will have the support of the Department in being able to do that and to follow through on the report. At the same time, if funding is required, I am absolutely supportive of accessing that funding to help deliver what is required in those countries and, indeed, here. They will have the full weight of our defence diplomatic network to make sure that we can be seen to support, and to actually support, delivering on those issues.

The right hon. Gentleman’s actions on this are to be commended. He has achieved not just a passing thing, but a real thing that starts a process for many, many decades. It will probably affect my grandchildren’s education. Not many people in this House can say that they make a real, long-lasting difference. I will be taking that report with me when I go back to Kenya and to other parts of the Commonwealth and I shall reflect on it and seek, when I visit, a place where my counterpart and I can commemorate together and lay a wreath on behalf of all those people.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

May I thank the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) for raising this important issue and for campaigning so tirelessly to acknowledge the death of all soldiers who fought in the great war? I thank the Secretary of State for bringing this statement to the House today and for the humility and the acknowledgement of his work as a soldier that has made him realise that death is the great equaliser for us all. I thank him for remembering every soldier across the Commonwealth who gave their life during world war one. Will he join me now in paying tribute to those in our armed forces currently who are bravely serving across the world? Will he acknowledge their sacrifice and thank them for the work they do?

[Mr Wallace]

Yes. One of the best ways to honour the people in the report is to support, as much as we can, the people serving today and our veterans. I would like to place on record my sadness on losing my colleague yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) the former Veterans Minister, who did contribute to supporting and making Government policy better for our veterans—supported by the wider Government. He will be a sad loss, but I know he will continue to campaign for them. No doubt we will hear him on the issue from the Back Benches. That is why we have set out a whole chapter on our people in the Command Paper and why we are funding such things as wraparound childcare for serving personnel, which has never been done before, to make sure that we demonstrate that support with action and funding.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I have the honour of representing this place as a Commonwealth War Graves Commissioner, along with the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne). I thank the Defence Secretary, as the chair of the commission, for what he has said today, and commend the report of the special committee made up of external experts for their diligent and extensive work. As set out in the Kenyon report over 100 years ago:

“It was…ordained that what was done for one should be done for all, and that all, whatever their military rank or position in civil life, should have equal treatment in their graves.”

I cannot stress enough just how seriously all commissioners take this matter and how committed we all are to ensuring that we right the historical wrongs of the past, ensuring that we correct errors and omissions. The service of all to our country matters. We will remember them and remember them all.

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and Professor Michèle Barrett for their important work on this issue. They provided the vital catalyst for the commission setting up the special committee. Alongside the full and unconditional apology for the wrongs of the past, the commission has already agreed a detailed action plan to address all the special committee’s recommendations. I am sure we all want these to be implemented in a timely way, so may I ask the Defence Secretary whether, if needed, there will be additional resources so that we can complete this work as quickly as possible?

[Mr Wallace]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her comments. The answer is yes. I ask in return that she, in her role as a commissioner, makes sure that requests match the aspirations and the recommendations in the report. I will be delighted to continue to work with her and the other commissioners on that. I would also like to place on record that the commissioners did an excellent job alongside the independent experts. When we met on this a few weeks ago, the commissioners made very clear to me their determination to carry out the recommendations and to put right the issues identified in the report.

[Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) [V]]

I am pleased to be able to follow the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), with whom I share membership of the commission. I am proud to be a commissioner and I am grateful to the chairman of the commission for his important statement today. I am also proud of the 1,200 people who work in 150 countries around the world tending the memorials, commemorations and gravestones of the many who served and lost their lives for the protection of this country and our values.

Over 100 years ago, the War Graves Commission was established with the specific remit to commemorate the first world war dead of the then British empire and to do so defined by the principle of equality of treatment in death, whatever their rank, religion or race. This happened in Europe and I am not proud that this did not happen across Africa, the middle east and India. I join my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North in welcoming the report we commissioned in December 2019, a month following the Channel 4 programme presented by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and featuring the work of Professor Michèle Barrett. The programme acted as a catalyst for this report, based on detailed research through available archives. I can confirm that this issue has been and is being taken extremely seriously within the commission. We are committed to ensuring that we right the historical wrongs of the past. The commission has been working over the last 20 years to ensure that we correct errors or omissions as we find them and that is what we will do on the back of this report.



My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has confirmed that he will hold the commission to account in delivering the detailed action plan that it has agreed to address the recommendations made by the special committee. However, does he agree that, while we cannot right the wrongs of 100 years ago, the commission can and should recognise that mistakes were made, apologise for them—as he has just done—and commit to doing what we can, where we can, now to renew our commitment to equality in commemoration with all communities of the former British empire touched by both world wars, where this report reveals that that did not take place?

[Mr Wallace]

My right hon. Friend is right to point out the determination of the existing commission—and over the last 20 years—to correct things as it finds them. This is one of those times where it has exposed things going way back. He is also absolutely right that, when you go around the world, you see that that network of people do an amazing job. It is extraordinary where you find in the world, almost like an oasis, well-kept areas of commemoration. You are often surprised that we were even there in the first place and, even now, they are kept and looked after. Some of the volunteers and some of the paid employees do an extremely good job as well.

On the funding, as I said to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), I will absolutely stand by to make sure that we find the available funding to deliver this. In return, I ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) to make sure that these things are properly dealt with, looked at and examined and that they are in accordance with the report’s recommendations and further subsequent recommendations.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

The revelations set out in this report are unacceptable and it is important that service and sacrifice are properly commemorated for all. Today, a Commonwealth service leaver with a partner and two children will have to pay almost £10,000 to continue to live in the UK, despite those years of service and sacrifice, so will the Government commit to waiving application fees for indefinite leave for all those members of the armed forces on discharge and their families and demonstrate that they really are looking at tackling inequalities?

[Mr Wallace]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who prompts me to answer the last question from the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne. We will start the consultation on that at the beginning of May.

[David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)]

This report’s findings make for very uncomfortable reading, but I pay tribute to the special committee, today’s commission for its response and the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and all those he worked with in drawing a vital spotlight to this issue. This will sadly be impossible in too many cases, but does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree that, where the commission can identify descendants of those who were named, it should try to work with them on appropriately commemorating those who gave their lives in the service of this country? It cannot undo what happened then, but it might provide some small comfort today.

[Mr Wallace]

Absolutely. The report commits to seeking further detail, both through archives and other means, in trying to identify those individuals and therefore to make sure that we try to find a way to commemorate them. The plus side in this day and age is the internet and the ability to communicate. I have already had an email in my inbox this morning from a man in Kenya about his grandfather. I read it with sadness and interest, but it gives people that opportunity to connect. Hopefully, this report will be a catalyst for many of those things and we will be able to follow them up. I will make sure that I pass on the email to the appropriate authorities, but I think it also gives me somebody to visit when I next go back to Kenya.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

May I first declare an interest as a former commissioner of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and as a current trustee of the Commonwealth War Graves Foundation?

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) for his work on this issue and I commend the Secretary of State for his statement today. I also pay tribute to the present commissioners, who commissioned this report. It was not an easy task for them to do. Reading the report is not easy. The commission quite rightly in Europe commemorates all those, including those from India and across the Commonwealth, who died in the first world war—whether that be at the Indian memorial at Neuve Chapelle, at the Brighton memorial to Sikhs, or at the Southampton memorial, where Lord Kitchener’s name is alongside those in the South African Native Labour Corps who died. However, that does not take away from the fact that racist attitudes were taken to treat others in other parts of the world differently.

The Secretary of State knows that the Commonwealth War Graves Foundation is working with the Ministry of Defence to promote education among young people on broader issues. Could he act as a catalyst to draw other Departments to work not just in this country but internationally, to ensure that this story is told and that future generations—as I think is his aspiration—recognise our debt to these individuals?

[Mr Wallace]

The right hon. Member is absolutely right and his point about education is true. One answer to why commemoration has taken so long is that, if people had been educated about what we did, the next question would have been “So how do I commemorate it?” but because it was not taught, no one asked the question or created the pressure to find out. I think that that has started now. I would be delighted to speak to my colleagues in the Department for Education to see what they can do in the curriculum and in teaching that. I think the commission’s report talks about education in those countries as well to ensure people have access to the history, and we can then incorporate it in our future teaching.

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) [V]]

I thank the Defence Secretary for his important and much-needed statement. Does he agree that the contribution made by soldiers from Commonwealth countries to our current armed forces is still extremely valuable today?

[Mr Wallace]

Absolutely. It is not only valuable; it makes us who we are. We should continue to do more and more—we recruited more than 1,000 from the Commonwealth this year alone. We should always recognise that our strength is our diversity and our global connections. I think that people from all backgrounds bring real strengths to us. We will continue to do what we can to support them. We have our consultation, and since I have been Defence Secretary, the Home Secretary and I have moved lots of policy issues that were not progressing, such as for interpreters in Afghanistan. That has sent messages about how Britain values people who support it from other parts of the world, and we will continue to do that.

[Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

Underpinning all the past commemoration decisions were the entrenched prejudices and rampant racism of imperial attitudes. We know that the empire is over, but those attitudes linger on—if they do not, why does the UK Government’s report on racism, which the UN has described as “reprehensible” and an attempt to “normalize white supremacy”, push back against calls to decolonise the curriculum? A landmark decision has already been taken in my constituency by my local authority, North Lanarkshire Council. Does the Secretary of State agree that we should lead the way in anti-racist education, as the SNP has pledged to do in our manifesto for the upcoming election?

[Mr Wallace]

I think that every political party would support teaching equality and not racism in schools. I am happy to explore further the hon. Gentleman’s comments about anticolonialism and decolonising our education curriculum. My grandfather was a Scot who went to India, and an awful lot of my Scottish family served abroad in the empire. That was how many Scots found success or education: by going afield. It is important to educate people about the role that we all played in the empire, whether good or bad, but we should also recognise all those people who were part of it, the sacrifices that were made and the treatment that they received, good and bad.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) [V]]

The report makes for uncomfortable reading, and lessons have to be learned. I thank the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) for being a leading light in this important matter. May I add my comments and thoughts to those of Members across the House about the need to ensure that education is put at the forefront and that the history curriculum reflects the massive contribution made by our Commonwealth armed forces? Sadly, war memorials and war graves are desecrated, as I saw recently at Tunstall memorial gardens. I thank Macey and Isabelle, aged 10 and five, who were inspired by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and went down to clean them up. Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising Macey and Isabelle and celebrating the Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s work maintaining the upkeep of 23,000 cemeteries across the world?

[Mr Wallace]

Yes, I fully support my hon. Friend. An amazing amount of work is done around the world and at home, in some of the smallest graveyards as well as the big ones that we often see on the telly, and they are looked after immaculately. For many people, they are also a place of sanctuary. Connecting young people with those places is a great vehicle to remind them of the sacrifices and horrors of war and why it should always be in our interest to try to avoid it.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]]

I thank the Secretary of State for his comments and the tenor of them. I am pleased that the commission has fully accepted the special committee’s recommendations. If I am able to visit my great-grandfather’s headstone in one of the first world war cemeteries in France, equally the great-grandchildren from our west African, east African, Somali, Egyptian and Indian diasporas—among others—should have fitting memorials to honour all their ancestors. We must ensure that there are deeds, not just words, to rectify this historical racism and prejudice and secure justice, so will the Secretary of State commit to take steps to protect and ring-fence any additional funding made available to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission specifically to implement the important recommendations?

[Mr Wallace]

I would go as far as saying that I can agree to make funding available. I will rely on the commissioners—my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and all the other members of the commission—to be the guardians of the implementation of the report and its next steps. I do not want people to come to this House and say that money was a barrier to something, but I also want to make sure that we do it in an appropriate way that has a lasting impact, to make sure, as I have said, that the start of the process does not end but goes on and on until we not only have commemorated the past but value people in future.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

I am sure the whole House would wish to honour the heroism and sacrifice of all troops, whether from the UK or the wider Commonwealth, who have fought for this country. The report certainly makes for sombre reading and I am pleased that my right hon. Friend will take forward its recommendations. However, does he agree that it would be entirely wrong to let the brave African and Asian service personnel of the previous century be dragged into the divisive culture wars of the present day?

[Mr Wallace]

The only wars that I am interested in are the ones that we can finish or avoid, or that threaten our values. I do not care where the people we will need to protect us come from and I do not care what their orientation is or what colour they are, either.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

The failure to formally honour and remember black and Asian service personnel in the same way as white troops is indeed a cause for shame and deep sadness. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has indicated that all the support necessary will be made available to try to do what we can to right this wrong. Will he confirm that that support will be progressed with the utmost urgency and sensitivity, so that all our war dead are finally given the respect that they deserve? I am sure he will understand that any delays will only entrench the sense of hurt and disrespect that this report will inevitably provoke.

[Mr Wallace]

Yes. The House should be under no illusion: the commission is absolutely determined to see this matter through. There are Members of this House on the commission and they are determined to talk and work together, and we will continue to do that. The weight of the Department will be behind them in achieving their goals.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I join Members across the House in paying tribute to the tireless campaigning work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) that has brought us to this important watershed moment in our nation’s history. I welcome the Special Committee’s report, which makes for sobering reading in laying bare the historical injustice that meant that tens of thousands of Commonwealth military personnel who made the ultimate sacrifice, giving their lives for this country in world war one, have been commemorated unequally or not at all. In seeking to right this historic wrong, the Committee’s report recommends an

“ongoing commitment to continue the search for the unnamed war dead and those potentially not commemorated”.

Can the Secretary of State please outline what resources will be made available to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to make that a reality, to ensure that all our gracious war dead are commemorated equally and that future generations are able to remember them?

[Mr Wallace]

At present the commission says it is satisfied that its £52 million budget is enough to start that process. However, we will complement that with the time and dedication of our defence diplomatic network involving more than 100 military defence attachés and the supporting staff in the embassies, whose actual presence in country will be there working alongside them. As I have said, I will be happy to review any requests for funding relating to other parts of the report or subsequent investigations.

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]]

A visit to a Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemetery can be very emotional, as the lines of tombstones confront us, with all the fallen honoured in the same way. The commemorative equality given to matters of rank and class is remarkable, and I must congratulate the commission on that, but when it comes to race, the commission has disastrously failed to live up to those principles. The Secretary of State has united the House in the way he has presented his statement today, but can he expand on how the Ministry of Defence will support the commission by way of funding and guidance on implementing the recommendations in the report, and on how this can be made into a continuous process?

[Mr Wallace]

I would like first of all to place on record that this commission and some of the previous commissions have taken some really strong steps to fix what was wrong when it was identified. The area of regret is that we did not do a lot of this much earlier. I would also like to say that we should not forget that, whatever the circumstances were, many of those people gave their lives to defeat fascism and to defeat people who challenged our freedoms, both for themselves and for us. That sacrifice was, in my view, worth it, given the freedoms that we enjoy. It is really important not to forget, in this report, that it was not for nothing. Those people did not give up their lives, whatever the circumstances were, for nothing. Certainly in the second world war and others, the threat to our freedoms was real.

As I have said in earlier answers, I will continue to ensure that the commission is supported by the Department and by me as its chair and as Defence Secretary, as the members of the commission continue to work to ensure that we always commemorate our dead and those who made sacrifices, whether in the first world war, the second world war or in all the other conflicts. We owe it to them. How we do that sometimes changes. A visit to the national arboretum is also a sobering and emotive experience, as we see individual units, regiments and conflicts celebrated, or commemorated, slightly differently. That is very moving, and it will be a good way to look at how we can unite people around our Commonwealth in the future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement.

Point of Order

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

12:33

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to be able to raise this point of order in relation to the operating of the quarantine exemptions process. An effective quarantine system is vital to protecting our borders, but there has to be some consideration and compassion for those who are vulnerable, who have disabilities or who have complex health conditions and have medical evidence to prove it. There has been little opportunity to debate these exemptions. This week, guidance appeared on the Department of Health website, but the Commons Library confirms that there has been no written or verbal statement regarding this guidance, which we need to support our constituents’ cases.

Despite representations with medical evidence, one of my constituents with complex health conditions who was forced to quarantine alone ended up being rushed to hospital over Easter. Doctors there said that she should not have been in a hotel at all. I now have a 16-year-old constituent, Ms Malik, who went urgently to visit her ill father in Dubai while her mother was at home with her sisters. She has now been stuck in Dubai for weeks, terrified to return. She is a minor, and it is not safe for her to quarantine in a hotel on her own; nor would she be allowed to by law. Her father is in Dubai, and her mother has two other children to look after. She has no one who can quarantine with her. She has a history of self-harming and her GP has asked that she be allowed to self-isolate at home with protections. She is due to come back on Saturday. We had first a rejection and since then nothing but delays and a lack of compassion and support from the Department of Health.

Could I therefore ask your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on what process the Government are following? How experienced are the staff making those decisions? I would be grateful to put this on record and seek advice so that we can scrutinise the Government on what is going on, including with those who are fasting due to Ramadan not getting food at the right times, so that there can be some accountability and support for our constituents.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her courtesy in giving notice of her point of order. She raised a number of issues about details that I am not in a position to answer, but she is an experienced member of the House and knows the various ways in which she can question Ministers. If there is any doubt about that, she can consult the Table Office. She has obviously made her concerns known about these important matters and cases and brought that to the attention of the House. She has put it on the record. With regard to further information or statements that may be made, I am sure the Treasury Bench will have heard her view that she would like that to happen.

Armed Forces Bill: Special Report

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill

Select Committee statement

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We now come to the Select Committee statement. James Sunderland will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement and will call James Sunderland to respond to them in turn. I call the Chair of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill.

12:36

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

Today, the Armed Forces Bill Select Committee publishes its special report on the new Armed Forces Bill. It is my privilege to present it to the House. Getting to this point has taken significant effort right across Westminster, so it is my duty to express my gratitude to several key stakeholders. I thank first the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to make this statement, and the Speaker’s Office and the Ministry of Defence for all their staff support and advice, notably on the content and scope of the Bill. I also thank the 16 right hon. and hon. Members of the Committee for their contribution, humour and hard work. We broke new ground as the first Committee of the House to conduct line-by-line scrutiny of a Bill by virtual means and worked intensively in the build-up to that before Easter and during recess to hear from many witnesses. I humbly thank them for putting their trust in me by electing a new MP as Chair. I am proud to represent the 2019 intake at this statement.

I know that I speak for all Members by expressing my gratitude to those who contributed to our inquiry. Their depth of knowledge and professionalism was inspiring. Last but not least, I thank the Committee staff and wider technical teams for their support in the past few months, which has proved invaluable through both virtual and hybrid working. I make no apology for mentioning Ms Yohanna Sallberg and in particular, the presiding Clerk, Mr Matthew Congreve, whose contribution and guidance at the age of 24 have been truly outstanding.

The report, published earlier today, is the key output of the ad hoc Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill. For those interested in the history, the requirement is a procedural anomaly harking back to the 1689 Bill of Rights. Every five years, a Bill must pass through Parliament thereby renewing the Armed Forces Act in statute and enabling the maintenance of standing forces in peacetime. Since 1961, the Bill has led to the creation of a unique hybrid Committee: technically a Select Committee with the power to summon witnesses and hear evidence, but also acting as a Public Bill Committee by scrutinising the legislation line by line. The Bill is not only essential to retaining and resourcing our armed forces but has come to serve as a checkpoint for what works and what is needed in statute.

The Committee was therefore appointed to scrutinise this important legislation. It has done so throughout the past few weeks, and it reported the Bill, unamended, back to the House last week. We inquired into specific areas of the Bill, focusing on the armed forces covenant, the service justice system and the service complaints system. We also explored additional areas, including diversity in the armed forces, healthcare and housing.

From the outset, the Committee welcomed the requirement to incorporate the armed forces covenant into law and noted that this change is important for service personnel, veterans and their families. We recognised some concerns on how the duty to have due regard to the covenant will work in practice, the current lack of prescribed outcomes for those entrusted with delivering it, and how the visions in the Bill apply to some areas of the covenant but not others. We also heard concerns about it only applying to some public bodies but not others. We therefore look forward to seeing the statutory guidance, which will be essential for informing public bodies of what is expected of them in applying the duty of due regard. We recommended that the Government conduct a review after two years on how this duty is operating in practice and that the annual report for the armed forces covenant should review its effectiveness and comment on future scope. We also recommended that the Defence Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), should conduct post-legislative scrutiny.

On the service justice system, the Committee found that the Bill demonstrates a commitment to improving the system. This, combined with non-statutory measures being implemented following the Lyons review, should ensure that it has the confidence of those who are subject to it, and also the wider public. We therefore welcome the efforts to reform the service justice system but recognise that some concerns linger on concurrent jurisdiction. We recommended that the Ministry of Defence work quickly to introduce the defence serious crime capability and ensure that clear protocols are in place to allow effective co-operation with civilian police forces and to agree jurisdiction.

Turning to the service complaints system, we welcome the efforts to speed up the process provided that the necessary safeguards remain in place to ensure fair and equal access to all. We found that the current processes do attract criticism, particularly in tackling delays to resolve cases, and we remain cognisant of the heavy workload being placed on individual officers and staff. We also supported the findings of the Wigston review and advised that the Ministry of Defence implement all of its policy recommendations.

On our additional areas of scrutiny, the Committee heard encouraging evidence that the experience of armed forces personnel with protected characteristics has vastly improved, but recognise that there is still more to be done. We welcomed the former Minister for Defence People and Veterans, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), committing to

“find a mechanism of restorative justice” ––[Official Report, Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, 31 March 2021; c. 94.]

for veterans dismissed due to their actual or perceived sexuality during the years of the ban on homosexuality in the armed forces. We asked that he report back to the House on progress within three months. We also support the important work of the Defence Sub-Committee on women in the armed forces, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton).

Furthermore, the Committee inquired into the provision of healthcare for veterans, particularly in mental health, and found it encouraging that the provision is getting better but recommended improvements in a number of areas and services. We sought to build on the important work of the Public Accounts Committee on service accommodation and found that the level of satisfaction for personnel and families living in service housing is still low. While work has been undertaken to improve this, we argued that better accommodation is an area that still needs prioritisation within the Ministry of Defence.

On the appointment and remit of our Committee, we found that the convention of committing the Armed Forces Bill to a Select Committee in addition to its usual Committee stage grants the Bill additional scrutiny. Our inquiry was, however, rather rushed due to compressed timelines, and we recommended that future Select Committees on armed forces Bills be given more time to complete their work. Overall, it was a real pleasure to work with hon. and right hon. Members from both sides of the House to deliver this important report. Consensus was achieved in most areas—no easy feat—and we recommended that the appointment of a Select Committee continues to be the convention for future armed forces Bills. I am grateful, again, to all my colleagues from all parties. Consensus is always persuasive and politics is far better for it.

Before I finish, I wish to remind Members of the underlying purpose of all this hard work. This House’s aspiration should be for Britain to maintain the best armed forces in the world and for this to be the best place in the world to be a veteran. Although there is much more to do, I believe we are getting there. We therefore pay tribute to our armed forces for their work, service and sacrifice, and this Bill is a vital part in our meeting our obligations to them. I look forward to working with all Members during later consideration of the Bill in this Chamber, and I commend this special report to the House.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), who, although he said he is new, chaired this Committee excellently? Like him, I pay tribute to the staff who supported the Committee, and I also pay tribute to the witnesses who came before us. He said that this is a unique Committee. It meets every five years, and I think I have served on every one of these Bills for the past 20 years. This was a difficult one because of covid, but it also was not helped by the attitude of the Ministry of Defence on the statutory guidance. Likewise, and I will put this on the record, it was not helped by the attitude of the then Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer). Does the hon. Member for Bracknell agree that what needs to change is that in future—the report mentions the length of time the Committee sits—a set period, for example, six months, should be provided for, in order to ensure that detailed scrutiny, which I do not think we did this time, can be guaranteed?

[James Sunderland]

For me, achieving this outcome was about consensus; it was about all members of the Committee coming together. I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, because I know that in the Command Paper of 2008 the covenant was first mooted; it is a combination of Conservative, Labour, Scottish National party and other MPs who have made it happen today, although of course a Conservative Government have brought it in. I am happy that the report, as it stands, provides some solid recommendations for the future. I agree that a more consensual approach to a Bill such as this in the future might pay dividends.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), a good friend of mine, on the way he chaired this Committee, which was a difficult one to chair. May I ask him why the Committee did not feel it fit to look at health problems and care problems with regard to Northern Ireland, and at vexatious claims made against Northern Ireland veterans?

[James Sunderland]

I thank my very good right hon. Friend for his question. The simple answer relating to Northern Ireland is that the legacy issues, very much in the news at the moment, are subject to separate work being led by the Northern Ireland Office, and the Ministry of Defence made it clear to me and the other members of the Committee that that would not be within the scope of this Bill. We divided on that at the beginning of the session. For me personally, the wider issues relating to Northern Ireland and care, and the provisions of the covenant, are catered for in this Bill. I am pleased that the implementation of the armed forces covenant in statute is very much the core feature of this Bill and will happen, for the benefit of all those in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) [V]]

The Armed Forces Bill is something of a whirlwind, and all on the ad-hoc Bill Committee will have learned so much over the past couple of months, as the Chair—the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland)—the Clerks and the digital support staff, to whom we owe a debt of gratitude for enabling the hybrid Committee to function, will know. It would be remiss of me not to congratulate the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) on his appointment to the Front Bench—Dochertys seem to get everywhere.

It should not come as a surprise to me, I suppose, after a good few years on the Defence Committee, but the armed forces have come on in so many ways in recent years in how they seek to recruit and retain personnel, for which they should be commended. It should also be said that all who were on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill were resolved to ensure the process continues.

However, while there was much for us to be positive about and agree on, as the Chair of the Committee has stated, I cannot help but feel that we are at a crucial inflexion point in the way the armed forces are perceived. The more I think about those of us in the Opposition who sought to make amendments to bring the armed forces closer to the society they seek to protect, the more I feel the Government favoured measures that keep them remote, discrete and unempowered. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) tabled common-sense amendments on a representative body, gender-neutral language and bringing the age of recruitment in line with that of our NATO allies. We supported other amendments on housing and on terms and conditions, and never really understood why the Government could not.

We use the language of heroes so often to describe those in the armed forces that sometimes we forget that almost all of them just want the simple pleasures of good pay, conditions and terms of service, or at least certainty, and certainly nothing worse than those of their fellow public servants in the NHS or a police force. Let me thank my fellow Committee members for their work, and the Chair and the Clerks for, over the last couple of months, writing this report—and here’s to more scrutiny of the work of the MOD on Third Reading.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Just a quick reminder that the idea here is to ask fairly brief questions, rather than to make speeches. I do not know whether James Sunderland needs to respond.

[James Sunderland]

I thank the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) for his kind words, and also for the very positive way in which he and the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) have engaged in the whole process. My simple response to his observation is that, in a very objective way, the Armed Forces Bill is notable for what is not in it. I say that because the report we submit today makes it absolutely clear where we feel—the Committee feels—further work is needed. I would refer him back to the report. I think I am with him on many of the areas he describes, and no doubt over the next five years the MOD will do its best to implement those issues.

[Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con) [V]]

May I start by saying, on behalf of the 2019 intake, that we are all very proud that our hon. Friend was selected as the Chair of the Select Committee and of his making this statement to the House today, as he is the first of our intake to do this?

Across Hyndburn and Haslingden, we have tremendous respect and support for our armed forces both past and present, not least because we are the home of the famous Accrington Pals, so can my hon. Friend explain in what way the Bill makes life fairer and better for our armed forces?

[James Sunderland]

I thank my really good friend from Hyndburn for her very generous words. The simple answer is that the Bill does two things. First, it increases and improves the offer to all service personnel and veterans through the armed forces covenant. It provides a statutory requirement on local councils, health authorities and education providers to improve those three areas to make sure there is no disadvantage by virtue of being in the armed forces and, of course, that special regard to disadvantage, injury, death or bereavement may be necessary for families. Secondly, the less well known part of the Bill is the fact that it improves the offer to service personnel in respect of the service justice system and courts martial. I believe that the Bill makes life in the armed forces a lot fairer and a lot better in many ways, and again, I would urge her to read the report.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I too congratulate the hon. Gentleman on setting the scene so well, and I thank him for all the hard work that he and his Committee did. I know the Armed Forces Bill contains the usual provision to deal with posthumous pardons, and I am looking to see if there is the possibility of providing for posthumous awards, such as for the legendary father of the SAS from my constituency of Strangford, Newtownards’s own Blair Mayne, whose courage, ability and leadership saw the award of the DSO on four separate occasions, yet the Victoria Cross was withheld. Is there scope in this Bill for the MOD, the Defence Committee or indeed the Minister for Defence People and Veterans himself to revisit this travesty, which should be rectified?

[James Sunderland]

I thank my good friend from Strangford for his question, which is a good one with no ready answer. My simple view is that the honours and awards committee within the MOD provides that particular function. There is definitely a case for looking at what we can do on posthumous awards. There may be a time limit for some awards. Of course, Rorke’s Drift was famous many years ago for the fact that awards were given posthumously in many cases, due to public demand. I am sure that my good friend the Minister will take this forward, and no doubt we may see something in five years’ time with the next Armed Forces Bill or before.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I commend my hon. and gallant Friend for his statement and congratulate him on chairing the 10 meetings of the Select Committee and on the publication of its 102-page report. I was pleased to note that the Committee says on page 48:

“The level of satisfaction for personnel and families living in Service housing is still too low.”

I congratulate him on including that as one of the main recommendations.

I was very disturbed to read on page 10 that the Committee wanted to have a virtual visit with tri-service personnel to discuss single living and service family accommodation on 18 March, but that was cancelled the evening before because

“the Secretary of State had refused authority for Service personnel to speak to the Committee.”

My hon. and gallant Friend wrote to the Secretary of State the next day, but according to the report, he has yet to receive a satisfactory explanation. Could he update the House on whether he has received any further correspondence about this matter from the Secretary of State?

[James Sunderland]

I thank my good friend from Kettering for his question. It is recognised from continuous attitude surveys that members of the armed forces are not fully satisfied with service accommodation. As a former commanding officer, I was very fortunate with what we had in Aldershot—that is an exemplar—but there are other parts of the estate that need work and money, and I know that the Ministry of Defence has got that.

In respect of the request for a visit, I cannot comment on behalf of the Secretary of State as to why permission was refused. I can surmise that it was not a good time because of covid-19 and because it was just before the Easter recess, so units may have been on leave. We wrote to the Minister. We have had a response saying that he would look at it again, and my indications are that the opportunity of visiting service accommodation for members of the Committee who want to will be made available in due course.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I thank the Chair of the Committee and its members for their work. The Armed Forces Bill does not directly reference enforcement mechanisms for ensuring that public bodies are held to account if a member of the armed forces community feels that they have not been treated correctly. What thought did he and the Committee give, if any, to setting it out in the legislation that existing ombudsmen or commissioners should have such a responsibility?

[James Sunderland]

Without giving a glib answer, I urge the hon. Member to look at the special report. I believe that there is an obligation on the ombudsman to keep the pressure on the Ministry of Defence. We discussed in great detail the need for independent, impartial pressure being brought to bear on the Ministry of Defence. We discounted the need for a union of troops and other such measures, but no doubt in time the spotlight will fall even more on this area. We also had some expert witnesses appear before the Committee who made similar suggestions, and I have no doubt at all that the MOD has got it.

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

May I take this opportunity to thank the Chair, the Clerks and fellow members of the Committee for their dedication and hard work, as well as those who gave evidence to the Committee or responded to the survey? It was vital that the armed forces community had their say, to make this Bill better.

Service charities have pointed out that the narrow focus of the Bill on healthcare, housing and education could create a two-tier armed forces covenant that reduces provision in those areas outside the scope of the Bill. Does the Chair agree with Labour that the Bill must cover all areas of the covenant if it is truly to bring it into law and eliminate the postcode lottery that many veterans face in accessing services?

[James Sunderland]

I thank my good friend from Portsmouth South for his question and for the very positive way in which he and his party—and, indeed, the SNP—engaged throughout the process. He raises a valid point. The implementation of the covenant in law is restricted at this point in time to the three areas that I mentioned earlier: health, education and accommodation. The report lists those areas in which we feel that more work is needed.

My sense is that the Ministry of Defence, over the next year or so and beyond, will be required to report on the effectiveness of implementation in those three areas. It will also be under increasing pressure to broaden the scope of the covenant in due course. Indeed, why should not social care and other aspects of public service provision be included? As a humble Back Bencher, I am sympathetic to the arguments that have been put forward, and I am sure the future rests with the Ministry of Defence as it take them forward.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the Chair of the Committee for his statement.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for taking this point of order. You will be aware that yesterday the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office issued notice of a written statement, confusingly entitled “FCDO Update”, which quite frankly could refer to anything. It was not released until 5 o’clock yesterday and its nature was not clear, but it turned out to be an announcement on some of the detail, but far from all, of the huge cuts in official development assistance, leaving a range of international bodies, partner countries and humanitarian organisations in a totally confusing and unacceptable situation. This was done at the end of the day, beyond the deadline for submitting an urgent question, which of course is 1 pm.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be aware of the deep disquiet in all corners of the House about the nature of the announcement, the way it was made, and the breach of the manifesto promise on 0.7% and the cross-party consensus at a time when we face a global pandemic, millions on the brink of famine, conflict and instability from the Sahel to Yemen, including in regions where our armed forces are stationed, and a climate crisis—it is Earth Day today. The UK is about to host the G7 summit and is, of course, seeking new trading and partnership opportunities around the world. The announcement has been resoundingly criticised today by the former national security adviser, the United Nations humanitarian chief and 200 of our leading humanitarian organisations.

Is it in order to put out an announcement of such magnitude at the end of the day without the ability to scrutinise it in this Chamber? How might Members from across the House—many senior Members from across the House want to ask questions on it—secure the presence of the Foreign Secretary in this Chamber to answer questions at the earliest possible opportunity?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and his courtesy in giving me notice of it. It is for Ministers to decide whether to provide information to the House in person or via a written ministerial statement, as he set out, so that is not strictly a matter for the Chair. However, the hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House and has set out some of the ways in which he might seek to find further information. He has also put on the record his disquiet about this matter, and I know those on the Treasury Bench will have heard his comments and will, I am sure, feed them back. I also note that the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs appeared before the International Development Committee this morning, and I suspect the issue may have been raised there.

We will now have a short suspension for cleaning before the next debate.

13:03

Sitting suspended.

Backbench Business

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

Covid-19: Government Transparency and Accountability

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

13:06

[Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Eighth Report of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Government transparency and accountability during Covid-19: The data underpinning decisions, HC 803.

I thank the Liaison Committee and the Backbench Business Committee for granting us time to debate this important report this afternoon. I thank the members and staff of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee for their extensive service and their efforts to bring about the report. I note that many of them are in their places this afternoon.

Of course, a report about statistics will bring up various quotations from the past. I think particularly of Disraeli’s

“lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

To manipulate Orwellian language slightly, I think too of the idea that language is power. In this circumstance, I would say that data certainly is power.

The past year has seen the Government impose some of the greatest ever restrictions on the people of this country. For those restrictions to have moral and democratic legitimacy, the Government must be able to justify them. At its core, the report asks whether the Government have done that. The aim of the report is not to question the decisions themselves, but to ask whether the data was available for us to understand and to interrogate those decisions.

The report finds that while there has been great progress in collecting data—I emphasise that point most strongly—there have been a number of shortcomings in how the data has been shared, how transparent the decisions have been and how some Ministers have made themselves available—or, sadly, have not done so—to face parliamentary scrutiny.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I was slightly disturbed to note in one of the report’s conclusions that Ministers who appeared in front of the Committee in place of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster were not properly briefed to answer its questions. The Committee noted his

“refusal to attend this Committee and account for decisions”

and drew the conclusion that it was

“contemptuous of Parliament.”

In my experience, that is not the usual course of action of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; he is normally very happy to appear in front of Parliament. I wonder whether the Chair is able to furnish the House with any correspondence the Committee has had with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to see whether that lack of accountability might be put right in future.

[Mr Wragg]

I refer my right hon. Friend to my correspondence with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, which is published regularly on the PACAC website. I would hope that the response to a well-meant, generous invitation to such a senior Minister will promptly be put right and that we will be assured of his attendance at our Committee, so that we can do the job we are there to do, which is to scrutinise Ministers and the Government, and indeed to give those Ministers the opportunity to place things on the record—something I think they appreciate.

As we progress through these latter stages of the pandemic, data transparency becomes more crucial. The public must understand the justification for each decision on the road map. I want to dwell on the progress to date; I am a fair-minded person and I like to give as much praise as I do criticism, although sometimes that may not be too apparent. On this occasion, I will dwell momentarily at least on the progress that has been made. The Government have amassed enormous amounts of data from a standing start, making much of it available to the public, including the covid-19 dashboard and through surveys by the Office for National Statistics, including the infection survey. The report pays warm tribute to the work of public servants, indeed echoing the words of Sir David Norgrove who paid tribute

“to all involved in this work, at a time of anxiety for them and their families, with all the disruption caused”.

One of the key messages of the report is in relation to accountability. The Committee has reviewed the common themes across three of our recently published reports. All three of those have highlighted the fact that the governance arrangements have not always been clear. Emphasised in those reports was a lack of clarity over the role of the Cabinet Office, the various covid Committees, and, indeed, the quad in decision making. In addition, as has been highlighted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), we have had concerns over ministerial accountability.

I will, if I may, mention briefly how data have been communicated to the public. The Committee is very clear in its view that statistics should be used for the purpose of genuinely informing the public and that open and honest communication builds trust. Even when the Government have, on occasion, fallen short of their promises, that openness and willingness to share uncertainty certainly builds trust. We should avoid, as one of our esteemed witnesses said, the tendency towards number theatre, where big numbers are bandied around perhaps without very clear context, perhaps seeking to impress, rather than entirely to explain.

The UK Statistics Authority’s code of practice for official statistics promotes the production and dissemination of official statistics that inform decision making. The UKSA’s code of practice framework is based on three pillars: trustworthiness, quality and value. Trustworthiness is about having confidence in the people and organisations that produce statistics and data, and valuing the statistics that supports society’s need for information. We, as a Committee, have concerns that Ministers have not always lived up to the expectations of that code of practice. As a result of the evidence presented to the Committee, we have recommended that the ministerial code is strengthened so that it is clear that Ministers are required to abide by that code of practice in their presentation of data.

On the publication of that data, the Committee outlined clear recommendations. The progress around these recommendations has been varied to date, although I have been keen to emphasise areas of strong progress. We recommend that the Government should publish the data that underpin the restrictions that will remain in place for businesses at each step and do so as a matter of urgency. It is all very well having the data in the public domain, but we need to know what are the benchmarks. I have likened it in the past to someone taking an examination: they know what mark they got in that examination but they do not know quite what the grade thresholds are. Furthermore, in terms of internet publication, hyperlinks to this data should be included on those pages explaining those restrictions for maximum transparency.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

In my constituency at the moment, we have 16 covid cases per 100,000. There have been no covid deaths in the past 15 days, yet all of my hospitality, certainly that in the city, is still prevented from opening up in any meaningful way. I notice that paragraph 191 of the report says:

“The hospitality and entertainment sectors have not seen sufficient data to underpin decisions relating to their industry.”

That is a point that I have repeatedly asked about in the House— I know that it is also the subject of a live case. Has my hon. Friend and his Committee seen any sufficient data to underpin decisions relating to the hospitality industry, which still remains closed in large part?

[Mr Wragg]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head, and the short answer is no. If the Government were to express the view that these are arbitrary decisions made because this is a difficult situation, that would be a more honest approach than vague references to following the science without bringing forward the evidence to underpin decisions. He hits the nail exactly on the head. I try to say this without sarcasm, which is a great effort for me, but we are surely driven by the data, and not dates.

The report also notes that local leaders did not always have access to the data that they needed to respond quickly at the height of the pandemic. As such, we recommend that going forward, the Government must share all available data with local areas in as much detail as possible, and ideally to patient level. Data that will be key to decision making on the road map should be shared immediately, and the road map indicators should be added to the dashboard with clear links to the data at lower local authority level underpinning each one.

Changing the topic slightly before I conclude, the Committee is now inquiring into the vexed proposal of covid vaccine certification or, indeed, wider covid status certification. The evidence we have heard so far reinforces the importance of transparency and accountability of data, as we highlighted in the report. Before the considerable ethical and legal issues about vaccine certification proposals are even taken into account, the purpose and effect of such certificates must be understood and the data and evidence underlying such a proposal set out. That means that the data needs to be made clear on issues such as transmissibility after vaccination, especially when considering implementing what we heard would be a permanent solution for what may well be a temporary problem.

I should say that I am pro-vaccination. I believe it is for the individual to decide whether they wish to take it. I would encourage them to do so and, indeed, when it is my turn—I am younger than I look, although perhaps not younger than I act—I shall indeed take the vaccine.

I will leave the House with one statistic, which I saw on the pages of The Daily Telegraph yesterday. It is that just 32 of some 74,000 hospitalised with covid between September and March had been vaccinated at least three weeks before. If we can get hold of more recent data than that, we will be proving that we can have confidence in the vaccine to deal with the worst aspects of this horrendous pandemic and that we can look forward to unlocking society, regaining our freedoms and allowing this country to move forward. I look forward to hearing the contributions of hon. and right hon. Members this afternoon.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I call the next speaker, I emphasise that we have two debates this afternoon and a number of Back-Bench colleagues wish to speak. To save me having to put a time limit on, it would be helpful if speeches were confined to around five minutes. That will enable everybody to get in.

00:04

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg). I thank him for the fair and inclusive way in which he has chaired the Committee.

The sense of shock, uncertainty and genuine confusion that the public at large felt as this crisis began was in truth mirrored by the Government. That is at least in part understandable, and I will return to the issues of preparedness later, but the nature, scale and speed of that first wave was unlike anything our Government have ever faced before. It would have tested the boldest of leaders, the best prepared institutions and the most resilient of communities.

My father-in-law died in those early few weeks. I was grateful to be able to attend his funeral, but my children could not. Since last April, tens of thousands of families have faced this trauma, and the loss of life and destruction of our economy is not understandable, nor was it inevitable. The truth is that our leadership was woeful, our institutions already cut to the bone by funding cuts, our communities fractured and frayed, health inequalities widening, and it is no surprise that the poorest have faced the greatest burden.

In a democracy as old as ours, the Government rightly have less power to control us and force compliance than many others across the world, but that means that transparency and accountability are more fundamental to securing our agreement for the common good, and when the very Government who had previously eroded accountability and shirked transparency asked us to make those sacrifices, there were bound to be tensions. The starting point of distrust and dysfunction was made much worse by the unpreparedness with which we entered this emergency.

Emergency preparedness, resilience and response is a term that we use to make sure that we are safe before, during and after an emergency and national disaster. At our Committee session on 29 April the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster appeared to talk about the work of the Cabinet Office, and we looked at preparedness. The pre-2020 timeline to our report is really important. Public Health England’s pandemic flu strategic framework in 2014 had as a key principle preparing for the worst. That 2014 document built on work in 2011, which followed work in 2009 regarding the previous flu crisis. In 2016 Operation Cygnus, the exercise conducted to understand our preparedness and test our resilience in response, was shrouded in mystery, and it was only released in October 2020, as even The Daily Telegraph reported, following legal action and the threat of the Information Commissioner. That document really exposed how poorly prepared we were.

In addition, in our meeting with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in April we discussed the national risk register, which had not been published since 2017; it is supposed to be published every two years. I asked him whether the Cabinet Office monitored whether various Departments and agencies had completed the mitigations in previous risk registers. He answered that it was the Cabinet Office’s responsibility to do so. He wrote to us later, on 21 May, with less clarity on the Cabinet Office’s role, simply stating that work on the risk register for 2019—for 2019—was advanced, but would need to be recalibrated in light of the current pandemic.

Also, we were running the NHS at over 90% of capacity, when the Royal College of Emergency Medicine and many other royal colleges had been warning that 85% was more in line with patient safety requirements. That, plus the additional year-on-year Government cuts, including to public health, all meant that we were not prepared when we could have been, and any look back at this dreadful time in our history needs to expose that failure.

But fundamentally and unforgivably, we were hamstrung by this Government’s ideological opposition to the very things that could have helped save lives—an ideological opposition to experts, an ideological opposition to local government and local expertise, an ideological opposition to the principles of good public health. And what was it replaced with? The absurd reliance on mates and acquaintances—approaching a pandemic in much the same way as most of us would look for someone to plaster our bathroom. Underpinning it, the idolatry of the private sector, trumping every time the institutions and people who actually understood the communities we were looking to protect.

Crucially, the Government were bereft of a strategy, with no accountability, and that includes the legislation and our role as Members of Parliament who were presented with that rushed legislation and reliance on ancient public health Acts, rather than the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and the scrutiny that had happened in this place before—a problem that we are still trying to extricate ourselves from.

The key part of that Civil Contingencies Act was the reliance on local resilience forums. None of us live in Whitehall; we live in our communities. That is why local forums are so critical, and any response should have been driven bottom-up and then supported by the national effort—and that is where so much damage has been done, in that local response.

For everything we have learned in our Committee, the transcripts are really quite shocking. As a previous emergency planner and someone who has worked closely with public health, I expected certain things to happen, and they did not. The test and trace debacle is the most obvious case in point—so many lives lost, so much time lost. Why would the Government not trust local leaders, and our colleagues in councils of all political colours, to get the job done that they were trained to do? Over the border from me only 20 miles, in Wales, the Welsh Test, Trace, Protect system is run as a public service and has delivered, by any measure, better outcomes for vastly less public money.

Things have got a bit better in terms of the local-national interface and response, but there are still some real issues that are hampering the public health response now and for the future. First, we must not reorganise the organisation that is doing this at national level in the middle of a pandemic and make people fearful of losing their jobs when they are trying to save our lives. Secondly, the consequence of the Lansley Act is that public health expertise in local government does not have the same access to NHS data that previously occurred. That has hampered the public health effort locally. Public health officials in local government need to be able to access data for public benefit and recognise the difference between identifiable personal data and non-identifiable data. That is something the Government can do something about.

We have to use this excellent report to look to the future. Does anyone here think that everything will be normal after 21 June? Again, after everything we have been through, the Government are still not on the front foot. They are still too late, as demonstrated by the decision about India going on the red list this week. I do not think everything returns to normal after 21 June, and the Prime Minister has now started hinting about a third wave. That means he has to take some actions. We are all so very weary. We are desperate to see our loved ones. We are desperate for everyone to get back to work, to go on holiday, to start planning our lives now. Our young people need radical change in our education system to be prepared for the future. Decisions need to be made now. We all want to be able to visit care homes and have people able to leave those care homes. It is an absolute disgrace, but the urgency is missing.

In conclusion, I am very proud to be a part of this Committee. I commend our Chair for the fair and inclusive way he has conducted it. Our Clerks and advisers have been superb in their support and responsiveness to allow us to do some great work in difficult conditions. I thank them for report they produced, and I thank our great witnesses. The Government, however, have not learned the lessons. I am not confident that they have taken on board these recommendations. If we are to secure compliance for the next stage, that really needs to happen: we need honesty and transparency about the data; honesty about the political choices that face us; honesty about the balance of risk; and, frankly, more respect for Parliament and the people we represent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I reiterate that we need to keep to five minutes, otherwise I will put on a time limit.

13:26

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

The covid pandemic, as we all know, has had the most devastating impact on the health and economy of our nation. It has also placed the most enormous strains on the administration of government. The pandemic is a phenomenon unprecedented in the lifetimes of most of us who are alive today. There was no real precedent to work to. There was no playbook. It was therefore inevitable that dealing with it would present huge challenges to medicines, science and Government.

Crucial to the response to the pandemic is the collation and analysis of data. The Committee’s report rightly praises the work of those officials who set up new data collection and management systems. In particular, I commend the work of the Office for National Statistics, the central part of which is the community infection survey, which provides a clear picture of the prevalence of the virus across the whole of the UK. Over the period of the pandemic, that picture has improved significantly in clarity.

The report rightly concentrates on and highlights the importance of transparency of data. In any democracy whose citizens are being asked, indeed instructed, to give up a large number of their inherent freedoms to keep their fellow citizens safe, it must be essential that the rationale for such instructions is readily available and understandable. That is only achievable through access to the data that underpin, or are claimed to underpin, the decisions the Government are making. Furthermore, citizens need to be assured that in making those decisions the Government are using the available data for the right reasons and in the right manner.

In this context, the Government have rightly been criticised for the way certain elements of data were used, or indeed misused. Arguably, the most egregious example of what I would categorise as the misuse of data was the press briefing on 31 October 2020, when the second lockdown was announced. Data projecting up to 4,000 deaths a day were cited, even though the data were never intended for public consumption, were based on extreme assumptions and were out of date by the time they were used.

Evidence to the inquiry suggested that on occasions such tinkering with the figures had seemingly been done for political purposes. The Committee heard, for example, that the target of achieving 100,000 tests per day was met by adding tests that had been sent out to tests completed—in other words, double counting.

Whether that was a genuine error or politically motivated, it cannot be acceptable.

The report points out:

“The first principle of the UKSA Code of Practice for the use of statistics is ‘Trustworthiness’.”

The UKSA code requires that

“Statistics, data and explanatory material should be presented impartially and objectively.”

However, the ministerial code requires only that

“Ministers need to be mindful of the UK Statistics Authority’s Code of Practice”—

it almost invites bending the rules. The report therefore rightly advises:

“The Ministerial Code needs to be strengthened so it is clear that Ministers are required to abide by the UKSA Code of Practice in their presentation of data.”

Of course, there is frequently a temptation for politicians to try to give the impression that they have all the answers. However, one of the most interesting pieces of evidence that the Committee received was that

“admitting uncertainty is unlikely to undermine the public response and might have a positive impact.”

Furthermore, if people have less trust in Government and the science behind the response to the pandemic, they are

“less likely to follow rules and guidance”.

The shocking, perhaps revolutionary lesson is therefore that to transmit most effectively the conclusions of data analysis, honesty is the best policy.

Arguably, data has never been a more important element of the governance of this country than in the past 15 months. I have no doubt that when the pandemic is over, extensive “lessons learned” exercises will be undertaken both by the Government and by various Committees of this House. I very much hope that they will consider not only the extent to which data should underpin decisions, as I believe it always should, but the way in which that data should be communicated.

The fundamental point of the Committee’s report is that absolute transparency in communicating information is essential to provide the best public response. When people are asked to give up their liberties, they need to be told why. Regrettably, for a variety of reasons—which, to be clear, were not always disreputable—that has not always been the case over the past year and a quarter.

13:31

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) and his Committee for their work in undertaking the report. To me, it is nothing short of damning, but to those of us who have been paying attention to the Government’s record on transparency and accountability over the past year, it is entirely unsurprising. We have seen the scandal of corona contracts; when processes that ensure fairness and transparency are stripped away, politics is left open to exploitation. The Greensill and Dyson scandals have shown that the Government oversee a culture of taxpayers’ money being allocated through informal back channels, such as texting and WhatsApp—channels protected from public scrutiny.

The report reveals another dimension to the culture of undermining transparency and accountability: the Government have been misusing data to drive their own agendas rather than to reflect reality. They have sought to make the evidence behind their decisions opaque and unobtainable to the public and to Members. Every day it becomes clearer that they have an aversion to transparency that goes right to their very core. In many cases, they have used data not to inform the public, but to emphasise an argument or create a more favourable view of the Government. UK Ministers have cited statistics without providing sources and acted in a manner that falls far short of the UK Statistics Authority’s code of practice. It is clear that the Government think that the public’s heids button up the back. A Minister, a friend, a donor or even a pub landlord can expect unfettered access through unofficial back channels; anyone else can expect to be taken for a fool.

The report notes that the Government have used data to provoke anxiety rather than a realistic understanding of risk. In an age in which fake news and disinformation feed off public anxiety for nefarious political purposes, that is deeply irresponsible. It is also important to note that transparency is not only desirable for its own sake, but critical in maintaining public trust in our political institutions, especially at a time when we face such a national crisis.

The result of these failures has been a breakdown in public trust and the deterioration of the intergovernmental relationships that ensure good decision making. That is why transparency, openness and accountability should always exist, regardless of any crisis at hand. I recognise the need for swiftness in decision making during the pandemic, but speed must not come at the cost of transparency or accountability. It does not have to; balancing speed and transparency better simply requires Governments to start thinking more creatively about how scrutiny is undertaken. One solution would be something like my Ministerial Interests (Emergency Powers) Bill, which hon. Members have heard me mention on a number of occasions. I know that time has run out for that Bill to be given any sensible consideration at this stage in the Session, but it would put in place a mechanism whereby, even after the awarding of such contracts, a scrutiny process could still take place to hold Ministers to account for those decisions.

When it comes to concerns about data in the report, transparency and scrutiny could be delivered by committing to a full public inquiry on the handling of the pandemic, just as the Scottish Government have done. That move was supported by all parties in the Scottish Parliament, including the Scottish Tories, so I see no reason why colleagues in this place would not also support one. After all, if the Government have nothing to hide, there is nothing to fear.

Lastly, it is hard not to contrast that with the approach we have seen from the Scottish Government, where clear and often frank communication has been key. When my constituents see one Government holding daily press conferences, outlining the data and answering questions in a full and frank manner and another hiding from the facts and shielding from transparency, they can certainly make up their own minds.

13:35

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

Without a shadow of a doubt, the nation has lived through a quite unprecedented period that would have tested all Governments of any colour. It is also the case that, for a long time, we did not know exactly what we were dealing with. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) outlined, from a standing start, the Government had to move in a fleet-of-foot manner without being entirely certain and in that respect the leadership and speed with which the Government acted deserves commendation.

The Committee heard from a number of witnesses who acknowledged that, from a standing start, the speed with which the Government compiled a bigger picture of data that enabled us to understand what was happening was impressive. The way in which the Government illustrated how the data informed their decision-making process was equally impressive. What has been lacking, as our inquiry shows, is transparent data that illustrates the efficacy of the measures taken and whether they were delivering their stated outcomes, which were of course to save lives and protect our NHS. There has been rather less of that.

The Government have taken incredible freedoms and liberties away from the public. We in this House are the guardians of the liberties of the people in this country and it is our job to satisfy ourselves that the sacrifices we are asking people to make are proportionate and delivering those outcomes. However, I genuinely fear that over the last year we have come to a situation in which, far from the Government asking us to sacrifice liberties for the greater good, we now have a culture where the Government feel that those liberties are in their gift to give back to us. Nothing is more clear about that than the road map, because having heard the rhetoric from Ministers that we will be driven by data, not dates, we are sticking to the timetable. I got the figures from my borough this morning, where we have 9.2 cases per 100,000. My reaction to that is: let the blooming restaurants open, for heaven’s sake. We are doing unparalleled economic harm by not being so fleet of foot to enable our economy to reawaken. From the perspective of doing the best for the citizens of our country, we really should be doing that, because, with every day that goes by without us letting businesses reopen, we are making their long-term sustainability even more difficult.

I went out for dinner on Saturday night—it was so exciting. I was sitting outside my local restaurant. It was six o’clock in the evening, so the sun was going down, and it started to get very cold. I spoke to the owner who, bless him, was very pleased to see us. How can it be sustainable to expect people to eat outside in the current climate? It is not July. I have the utmost respect for everybody who is trying really hard at this moment to sustain a living—we will be dependent on the taxes they will pay to get us out of this—but, for heaven’s sake, I cannot believe how out-of-touch I feel we have got with us taking it for granted that these businesses can resurrect themselves on an arbitrary date.

We know that these restrictions have not demonstrated any positive benefit in respect of covid. My local area went into the November lockdown with one of the lowest case rates in the country and came out with the highest. There is a simple reason for that: we restricted legitimate businesses from being able to engage in economic activity while keeping the schools open, so there was social transmission. Lockdowns are effective only if everything is locked down, yet we seem to have locked down the most productive areas of our economy, which, frankly, for a Conservative Government, I find utterly bizarre.

My final point—recognising your strictures on time, Madam Deputy Speaker—is that we need to ensure that when we are asking the public to restrict their freedoms, it must deliver a positive outcome in saving lives and reducing pressure on our hospitals. So why is it that in palliative care wards, people are allowed only one visitor? What risk is there to the people in those wards of dying from covid when they are already dying? What we are doing is being very cruel to people at the end of their lives, because they cannot get comfort from their loved ones. Equally, what positive outcome is there right now when residents in our care homes, who have all been vaccinated—and, as my hon. Friend said, are protected from this disease—still cannot see their loved ones? My grandmother is 95 years old, with dementia. She is in permanent distress because she thinks no one cares about her. She has been vaccinated. I would love to be able to go and see her. She thinks I do not care. I think what we are doing is cruel and delivers no positive benefit to public health.

13:41

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), who gave a very passionate speech. It was an honour to serve on the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee during this inquiry and to contribute to the production of such an excellent report, and I thank the Committee staff for all their hard work.

The Nolan principles of public life speak of objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership as being core to public office and good governance. However, given the report’s conclusions, the Government’s stewardship of each of these principles has been brought into serious question. I want to speak specifically to recommendations relating to the Government needing to improve transparency by publishing data and information that underpin decision making.

Throughout the pandemic, when people have died, freedoms have been curtailed, families have been separated and living standards have suffered, the Government should have been more open and transparent about the data and information that have informed the decisions that have asked the public to make such huge sacrifices. There is a moral imperative to justify and evidence these decisions and to clearly show that they are working. When necessary, it is about the Government being honest about the uncertainties in the data, which would help to encourage trust, rather than scepticism. As the report states:

“Transparency builds trust, and trust aids compliance with rules.”

However, the communication has not always been transparent, which has damaged trust in sectors and communities across the UK.

The Committee heard from hospitality business organisations about the impact of the pandemic and I have discussed this with hospitality businesses in Luton South. Employers and employees understand the need for public health restrictions but are frustrated that they were left in the dark by not being provided with the information that underpinned the restrictions that impacted on their business operations. Pubs specifically required further information on the 10 pm curfew and the restrictions on wet-led pubs.

Lessons must be learned, as the Government are still failing to communicate the restrictions effectively with businesses. I have spoken to a number of businesses in the aviation sector that are stuck in limbo. They fully recognise the critical importance of the health restrictions to prevent the importing of cases and variants, but throughout this last year, they have consistently requested clarity on the information informing the restrictions in their sector in order to plan, particularly for the future and the opening up of our economy.

The traffic-light system is welcome, but there are still so many questions left unanswered. What information informs the criteria that places countries in the green, orange or red categories? What information underpins the operation of the green watch list? How will Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office travel advice work alongside the new framework? It is still unclear when further information will be provided. If it is possibly some time in May, business and airports will have such limited time—a week or so—to prepare for the potential introduction of the system on 17 May.

The sector needs certainty. This is not just about people going on holiday; the aviation sector is critical to our economy, supporting local economies and thousands of jobs. I fully support the report’s recommendation that the Government should publish, as a matter of urgency, the data that underpins the restrictions on businesses that will remain in place at each step of the road map, along with data thresholds for the road map, which would avoid confusion when decisions are made to move between the steps. I hope the Government will put those recommendations, and others in the report, into action to improve trust and compliance with the regulations.

Although the report focuses on the data, its conclusions reaffirm the Committee’s previous call for a public inquiry into the Government’s handling of the covid-19 pandemic. I emphasise that the Committee worked collectively on the report, but the Labour party will continue to call for an inquiry to start as soon as possible so that crucial, life-saving lessons can be learned.

13:45

[Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)]

As a first-term Member of Parliament, I am relatively new to the work of Select Committees. When I joined the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, I expected to undertake important and valuable work scrutinising the heart of Government, but I did not quite expect to have to consider matters that are so crucial to everyday life and, indeed, matters of life and death.

Data—the number of coronavirus cases, where they are occurring and the number of tests conducted and vaccinations administered—have decided whether we can leave the house, go to work, see family or go to the pub. Getting data right is at the heart of getting the Government’s response right, so the Committee’s inquiry was timely and necessary.

I reiterate my thanks to the Clerk of the Committee and the staff who have done such sterling work in helping to put the report together; to the witnesses for providing their knowledge and insight; and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) for his chairmanship.

The Committee rightly recognises the efforts that the Government have made in pulling together data from a standing start 12 months ago. Governments do plan for catastrophes and emergencies, but I appreciate that this period has been exceptionally difficult for those in Whitehall. The coronavirus dashboard—to give an obvious, visible example of publicly available data—is very impressive, but for me the inquiry raised two issues on which improvements can be made in terms of the accuracy and certainty of data. The Committee found that the graphics the Government have used to present data have not always met the basic standards that would be expected. I welcome the assistance of the UK Statistics Authority and the Royal Statistical Society in supporting the Government to produce clearer graphics.

There is an understandable desire to present any information in the best possible light—it is a natural human instinct—but the news that we have had over the past year has not been good. We heard evidence that there has been a much greater public appetite for data, with people being willing to study it—particularly data on coronavirus—much more closely than perhaps they would have done in the past, so it is important that any information produced by the Government is accurate and well sourced. I trust that the report’s recommendation that statements on Government websites should direct readers to the detailed data that underpins any numbers will be taken forward.

There is a very human reluctance, particularly among politicians, to answer a question with “I don’t know,” but for periods in this pandemic, as we have been learning more about the virus and how it spreads, there have been questions to which we do not necessarily have readily available answers. I found the evidence that we heard from behavioural scientists very interesting. People do respond to open and honest information that is clear about the uncertainties within it, so it is important that Government communication trusts the people and levels with them.

Some thought is required on how information is communicated. I expect that, before this pandemic, few members of the public had heard of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. Members of SAGE now frequently contribute to public debate and are introduced as members of that group. While that is important, and they play an important role in helping to inform public understanding, it might be less appreciated that there are differences of opinion within SAGE. The Committee found that guidance for SAGE members would be helpful.

[Steve Brine]

One of the most interesting parts of the report is that these advisers, who probably enjoy the media requests that they get—although I can confirm that that wanes—appear as members of SAGE “speaking in a personal capacity”, but the public hear a Government adviser speaking about the subject of covid and draw conclusions from that. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is no wonder the public end up confused?

[Tom Randall]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The public perhaps do not appreciate that there are sometimes a variety of opinions within a group such as SAGE. Indeed, within SAGE, debate is encouraged as part of the decision-making process. Sometimes people think that there is a definitive scientific answer to something, which is not always the case. As we heard earlier, the report made further important points about sharing data, trusting bodies to make local decisions and the process of decision making itself.

This is, as I said, a timely report. I know that both the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care have responded to some of its key recommendations, but I urge the Government to take on board all of them, so that, as we enter what is hopefully the final stage of this pandemic, even better decisions will be made.

13:50

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Tom Randall), who spoke very eloquently about the limits of knowledge and how much we know and do not know.

I thank the Committee for its report, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), who was as eloquent as ever, and the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) for their leadership on this. The Government have a duty to provide the public with fair and balanced information. As the report says, at times, the Government have presented data well in very difficult circumstances—the coronavirus.data.gov.uk site and the vaccination daily updates are excellent examples—but it is also clear that they have sometimes used statistics without providing full data, providing context for the data or explaining uncertainties in the data.

The critical thing—I am delighted that we have the Paymaster General listening to this debate, because, as she knows, I hold her in high regard—is to keep trust with the people. The Government need to provide the public with full information and datasets to allow them to understand risk in the round. The use of partial data or data that is presented partially damages public confidence. Frankly, it has damaged my confidence in the Government, which is why I have been less willing to vote for the past couple of lockdowns. I sometimes do not know what the Government’s real agenda is. I do not mean that in a silly conspiracy theory kind of way. The pandemic clearly exists. Clearly, there was a very strong case for a harder lockdown earlier, and I think a lot of us now see that case, but at the same time there has been a lack of clarity. I would draw a rough comparison with the Iraq war. Mistruths or non-untruths finally catch up with Governments. At the time, Tony Blair was a highly popular leader, but he is now seen to be a shallow populist. New Labour still has not recovered, partly because of the damage it did to its credibility by not telling the truth and not levelling with people.

I believe there is a strong case, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) and others have argued, for fuller and franker datasets. Government can help people to rationalise risk, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling explained, so that we better understand Government policy. They need to explain better what is happening, rather than making a crude attempt at times to manipulate behaviour.

Specifically, it is difficult for us—all of us, whether we are in this House or out working in the country—to contextualise some of the numbers. Numbers of covid deaths were always released without a sense of proportion—without explaining that over 1,000 people die and are born in the country every day, or that between 7,000 and 25,000 people die of seasonal flu every year. In the last decade, that has included both myusb parents, for example. There has been so little contextualisation of the information. I saw not one Government spokesman, be it a Minister or a health adviser, say that the median age of covid death was 83. Why not? Because, as we know perfectly well, the Government feared a lack of compliance. For sure, that is a risk, but there is a greater risk by not being honest. There was a strong argument for saying why we should co-operate anyway; we did not need to have the information manipulated for us by a Government who, no doubt with the best of intentions, were trying to get us to do certain things. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling says, honesty is the best policy, even when we are unclear about the policy. I read some media stories—clearly, with a pinch of salt—suggesting that some Government scientists were happy to go along with this soft manipulation of data. If so, shame on them.

My next point—I promise I will not be too much longer, Madam Deputy Speaker—is that not once was there a realistic attempt to offset covid data with other data to show the cost of lockdown. That may not have changed our opinions, because clearly the saving of life was the significant factor here, but in saving life people have died and it is right for us to be able to understand and see the datasets that explain honestly the true costs. Frankly, we still have not got them a year in.

Sometimes, I do not know what the Government’s aims on covid are. We are told repeatedly by the experts and Ministers that we cannot get rid of covid. Well, okay—so, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) says, if we cannot get rid of it, why are our restaurants not open? Frankly, so few people are dying of it that more people are now dying on the roads than of covid. More people will be dying from winter flu than from covid. So why are we still in a situation where we are encouraging long-term poverty, which will have a far greater effect on people’s lives than a pandemic that—thank God—is no longer killing people in anything other than tiny, tiny numbers? There is a lack of logic and consistency. If the Government had been clearer with the data, more honest and more open—if they had said, “Here’s the data. This is what we make of it”—we would have been able to do a better job.

I am happy to accept that the hard lockdown was probably the best option at the time. After that, we could have followed the Swedish model, lived with it and accepted that there were different prices to pay, or we could have continued to have a hard and aggressive lockdown every time covid raised its head. They were both variant options, and we sort of muddled through the middle in a slightly uncomfortable way. There was not great advice initially from Public Health England, but we understand that everybody in the beginning made mistakes, and I do not think that any Government would have done this any differently.

The pandemic created a unique set of circumstances, but I believe that more data and more context would have fundamentally created more trust, both here and, more importantly, out in the rest of the country. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) is a diligent Minister and Member of this House. I urge her to advise the Government that more data and more context equals more trust, and we still need that for the future.

13:57

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely). That theme of trust is one that I will return to. I thank the members of the Committee who are present, who, ably led by their Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), produced an excellent report for the House. I certainly endorse all its conclusions and recommendations. It would be welcome if the Government accepted them all and put them all into practice.

One of the points that the Committee makes is that policy based on evidence and data is important, but that has obviously been very difficult in these challenging circumstances. We have learned over time, and Government have not had all the data to hand, particularly at the beginning. I recognise that in the remarks that I will go on to make.

Several hon. Members have talked about being open and transparent about communication and about keeping high levels of trust. That is incredibly important. My right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) referenced that back in October. He also referenced the press conference that the Prime Minister had on the Saturday. For me, one of the most important and damaging episodes was the day before, when information about projected hospital capacity was leaked to the media. It was not consistent with what I was being told by my local NHS trust. It turned out not to be true, and it also turned out to be so insubstantial that it was not used at the press conference the day afterwards in setting out the Government’s decision making. For me, hospital capacity and the pressure on the NHS would have been incredibly important in my decision making, and I am afraid that that episode significantly damaged the trust I had in Ministers, which informed the trust I was willing to put in them afterwards, which has informed the decisions I have taken.

[Bob Seely]

Was that the fiasco of the claimed 4,000 deaths, which was bogus data that was already out of date, or was that another example?

[Mr Harper]

No—my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West referred to that. This was a slide that was leaked to Laura Kuenssberg, the BBC’s political editor, which referred to hospital capacity and how quickly we may find the NHS being overwhelmed. That information was not published by the Prime Minister the following day and turned out not to be correct. I felt that that was very damaging. It was intended to set up a debate, but the data actually did not stand up at all.

[Steve Brine]

The Opposition faced criticism for not asking enough questions. Does my right hon. Friend think that the media asked the right questions or enough questions when incidents such as the one he just mentioned came to light?

[Mr Harper]

No, I do not think that they did entirely. This also highlights the danger of important decisions being announced at press conferences, not in the House. At that particular time, the House was not sitting, but frankly, given the impact of a decision of that magnitude, the House should have been recalled, and it should have been announced in the House to allow us to ask questions, not on our own account but on account of our constituents. I am pleased that subsequently, when proposals for a third lockdown were made in January, the Government learnt from that episode and recalled the House, so that the decision could be announced here, and we were able to ask Ministers questions, albeit with rather a limited amount of time available to do so.

I mentioned the point about trust because there have been stories in the media—the most recent one being yesterday in The Spectator by Isabel Hardman—about the decision that my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove referenced on vaccine passports. There is some suggestion, which I am sure cannot be true, that the Government might attempt to win a vote in the House by linking the case for international vaccine passports, which I think command a large degree of consensus, to the one for domestic vaccine passports. The cases for those are very different and should be set out clearly.

I do not know how Members would vote, but I say gently to the Government that if that were to turn out to be true and they were to win a vote on that basis, it would fracture the trust that many Members have in the Government, and that fracture may not be repairable. That would be very dangerous on a public health matter, where it is so important for the Government to command the trust of the public, particularly when decisions have to be taken quickly with a limited amount of data. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that any decisions on international vaccine passports and domestic ones will be set out separately for the House to take. If she were able to say that today, it would get rid of what may turn out to be completely idle speculation by members of the media.

On the core point about data, the House will remember that I and 62 other Members wrote to the Prime Minister on 13 February setting out what we thought was a sensible road map. We said that once the top four groups vulnerable to covid had been vaccinated and their vaccinations were effective by 8 March, we should be able to start unlocking the country. I am pleased that the Government listened to that and kicked that process off on 8 March. We also said that once the top nine groups have been vaccinated and those vaccinations are effective, which they will be by the end of this month, we could relax all restrictions. I will conclude my remarks by setting out where the data sits at the moment and why, although I agreed with the Government when they said “data, not dates”, I share the disappointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove that we seem to be stuck on dates, not data.

We are now in a position where the number of people dying from covid has fallen to around 24 per day, which accounts for around 4% of deaths in England and Wales. That is down from a peak in January of 1,361 per day, which accounted for 45% of deaths—a dramatic reduction. The number of people in hospital has fallen to 2,000 from nearly 40,000. The important thing is that vaccination, which has gone extraordinarily well, with a fantastically high uptake, is breaking the link between cases, deaths and hospitalisations. Since schools have gone back, cases have continued to fall, but even if we were to see cases rising, that would not lead to an increase in deaths and hospitalisations.

I think that the Government could safely go faster. That would have massive economic benefits. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) said, there has been a big impact on hospitality, and that is important because the job losses have been largely borne by younger people, who are largely not vulnerable to covid but have undergone tremendous sacrifices to their future prospects for the benefit of others. The sooner we can safely reopen the economy, the sooner we can improve the prospects for the younger generation, who have suffered so dramatically from the steps that have been necessary to deal with the impact of covid.

14:04

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) [V]]

As a member of the Select Committee, I acknowledge the hard work done by our Chair, my fellow members and the Committee’s staff.

While Committees can rightly attempt to hold the UK Government to account—and this report does just that—there is a wider issue here. As we have heard, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster refused to attend. The UK Government’s attitude was built on the premise that good enough will do. Attending press conferences and reading out data that, as the report states, was used

“to emphasise an argument, rather than genuinely trying to inform the public”,

as should be the case, is not good enough.

The Chair quoted Disraeli; I shall quote Rudyard Kipling:

I keep six honest serving-men

(They taught me all I knew);

Their names are What and Why and When

And How and Where and Who.

Too often, UK Government briefings failed to consider those basics of curiosity; they failed to understand that people would be curious as to why they were being asked to stay at home, to wear a mask or to not meet friends and family. Perhaps the UK Government, like Kipling, thought it was prudent to let those serving-men

“rest from nine till five”.

Well, I don’t. When the population of the UK faced a virus unlike anything we have ever encountered, they deserved better. If the UK Government are going to close down businesses, people need explanations. They need to understand the rationale. They need to be shown the figures.

The phrase “Trust me, I’m a politician” does not hold much cachet with the public, and the aversion to the truth and lack of transparency displayed by the UK Government only add to people’s mistrust. At times of national crisis, we need people to trust the Government. Big decisions are made that come into effect very quickly, and the normal levels of scrutiny might not be appropriate in the time allowed. It is therefore crucial that the evidence on which decisions—often life-changing decisions—are made is timely, accurate and transparent.

There is no place for blind trust in our society; trust has to be earned. Throughout the covid crisis, the UK Government have failed to do that. The UK Government demanded and expected trust, but failed to earn it. From the dubious contract tendering, which was covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), to the narrowing of the criteria in the definition of coronavirus deaths, the UK Government have played fast and loose with data, while displaying an arrogant, devil-may-care attitude. That point was reflected by the Good Law Project, which condemned the UK Government for being

“contemptuous of transparency and apparently allergic to accountability.”

The Select Committee report highlights that UK Ministers quoted statistics without providing sources and acted in a manner that fell short of the UK Statistics Authority’s code of practice. The report found that there were not enough explanations of where ministerial responsibility for data lay, that that changed several times throughout the pandemic, and that UK Government delays in sharing data hampered local covid-19 responses. When the UK Government failed to be open and transparent, they fed the conspiracy theories, tested the resolve of responsible citizens and undermined the colossal work being undertaken by frontline workers.

The Prime Minister’s former house master once wrote:

“Boris sometimes seems affronted when criticised for what amounts to a gross failure of responsibility… I think he honestly believes that it is churlish of us not to regard him as an exception, one who should be free of the network of obligation which binds everyone else.”

Most of us would be affronted by the naivety of our teenage self; it appears that the Prime Minister has not just embraced those attitudes, but encouraged those close to him to do the same and rewarded them for their efforts. As we once again attempt to emerge from the covid restrictions, we cannot allow the UK Government to walk away from this.

I shall close by quoting the conclusions of the report:

“The Ministerial Code needs to be strengthened so it is clear that Ministers are required to abide by the UKSA Code of Practice in their presentation of data. The UKSA Code includes the principle of trustworthiness that builds ‘confidence in the people and organisations that produce statistics and data’. Abiding by the UKSA Code of Practice is a statutory requirement for Government Departments. It is simply not enough to ask Ministers to be ‘mindful’ of the UKSA code.”

Unfortunately, principles, conventions and expectations are not enough. Ministers cannot be held to account by a raised eyebrow or a stern letter, which is why it is only right and proper that PACAC holds an inquiry into the propriety of governance, in the light of Greensill.

14:10

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members from across the House who have taken part in this hugely important debate. I thank the Committee for its report, and its Chair, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), for the report and for securing today’s debate. I would like to declare that I have been involved in the data collection, as a volunteer in the Office for National Statistics covid survey, which comes to my house regularly—I can see the data being collected.

I stood at this Dispatch Box more than a month ago when the hon. Gentleman first introduced this report to the House, and my alarm at its contents has not subsided. So much has been asked of the British public as a result of the decisions that have been made and are being scrutinised in this report; there are huge implications to staying at home, closing businesses, and people not attending births, marriages, deaths and funerals. We need to know that we can trust these decisions. The Nolan principles of public life speak of “objectivity”, “accountability”, “openness”, “honesty” and “leadership” as being absolutely core to public office and good governance. This report brings the Government’s stewardship of every one of those principles into serious question. On both sides of this House, we should be deeply concerned.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), with her expertise as a former local emergency planner, talked correctly about preparedness, asking whether we are prepared for what is to come with covid and for future emergencies. She asked what can we learn from the decision making and talked about the ideological barriers to good decision making that have been displayed. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) talked about the impact of the lack of transparency. It is still having an impact on decisions now, for example, in respect of the data behind the traffic lights for travel restrictions. We still need to see data—it is still not good enough.

I wish to focus on three core themes: accountability, clear decision making and transparency. On accountability, I share the Committee’s indignation that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster did not appear before the Committee during its inquiry. What has he got to hide? Has he decided that parliamentary scrutiny, the bedrock of our democracy, is just not for him? As the report says, this was “contemptuous of Parliament”. Does the Minister know why the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster did not appear?

Continuing on the theme of accountability and openness of information, one area the report does not highlight but which is very relevant is the issue of private contractors. How can Parliament scrutinise the Government’s pandemic response when so many essential components of the response have been given to unaccountable private firms? We recently learnt that as well as the Government paying Deloitte £323 million for its role in the test and trace system, it is even being paid to draft Ministers’ parliamentary answers, which is ludicrous. Paragraph 96 of the report states:

“Lines of accountability must be clear”.

I absolutely agree. But it would seem at the moment that if we need answers we would be better off contacting the chief executive officer of a large consultancy firm than the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

That brings me to the second key theme of the report, which is how decisions are made. I wholeheartedly agree with the report’s analysis that it has been very unclear who is responsible for ensuring that decisions are underpinned by data, especially when so much is at stake; that is absolutely right. There has been buck passing between Departments, which is totally unacceptable. One wonders if this could have been avoided and we could have found out more if the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had bothered to turn up to the Committee in the first place. I am also pleased that the Committee highlighted the issue of local contact-tracing data, which has been raised by Members in this debate. This is a crucial point and it is absolutely correct.

Vital information, which would have helped local leaders to respond quickly to outbreaks, simply did not come quickly enough. Last month, I met local councillors and local authority contact tracers up and down the country and they all reported feeling completely bypassed by the Government. They had the capacity, the tools and the local knowledge to run a highly effective contact tracing system, and many went on to do so, but they were not given the data that they needed fast enough, despite pressing for it. I heard stories of people having to wait five days or longer for the information that was needed immediately.

It is very clear that an ideological reluctance to work with local authorities drives that decision making. Perhaps the Minister could tell me what the reasons were behind the Government’s unwillingness to share data with local authorities and local contacts. Does she agree with the report and with my Opposition colleagues that that seriously hindered the ability of local government and local authorities to control the virus at a vital time? Contact tracing is likely to play an important role for as long as we have new cases of covid-19 around the country, so this is important to know now and for the future. It is integral to breaking the chains of transmission. Labour has long been asking the Government to put contact tracing in England into the hands of local councils and trusted local public health teams who know their own communities better than anyone, rather than into the hands of more and more unaccountable firms. It is not too late to do this.

Finally, let me turn to transparency. Again, I am so glad that the Committee highlighted this crucial issue. A lack of transparency has plagued the Government’s response to the pandemic from the off. In particular, I share the Committee’s concerns about the obfuscation over the data that we saw during the tier system. This report shows that there were no data thresholds aligned to the indicators for tiering decisions. There simply cannot be a repeat of the shambolic and unfair chaos and confusion that we saw towards the end of last year, as we now move towards the end of the road map and beyond.

The Government’s aversion to transparency extends beyond lockdown data, however. Not mentioned in the Committee’s report are procurement and the information available on outsourced Government contracts, which is also very relevant. At the latest count, nearly 100 covid contracts awarded to private suppliers last year have still not been published. We simply have no idea how much the contracts were worth, who they were awarded to, and what they were for. This is extremely important information that should be in the public domain to build public trust.

The recent twist in this worrying tale came recently when the High Court found that the Government had acted unlawfully when it came to transparency in contract publishing. In fact, only this week the Good Law Project has uncovered that a £100 million personal protective equipment contract was brokered by a Conservative party donor and good friend of the Government. That information entered the public domain only thanks to an administrative error, which appears to be the only way to get reliable information from the Government these days.

Then we have the murky subcontracting of the Government’s contractors. Let us take Test and Trace for an example. My hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster highlighted in the House last October the fact that Serco had subcontracted its work on contact tracing to 29 other companies. The Government have refused to give us the names of these businesses; we simply do not have the transparency that we need. This information about data and taxpayers’ money should not be hidden from the public.

In closing, allow me to offer my sympathy to the Paymaster General. She certainly has a lot of questions to answer this afternoon. This report says that it is vital that lessons are learned and that changes are made. This is a Government who refuse to learn and refuse to change. When the chips were down and the stakes could not be higher, this report has shown that many, many times the Government threw openness, transparency and best use of data out of the window, which has undermined public trust in Government decision making.

The Committee has recently recommended a public inquiry and we on the Opposition Benches are also calling for that. It needs to happen urgently so that we can rebuild that essential trust among the public, and it cannot wait until the next Parliament. I hope that when it does arrive, it will address the many questions posed by this report that remain unanswered. The Government simply cannot run from scrutiny forever.

14:19

[The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)]

I shall certainly do my best to answer as many hon. Members’ questions as I can. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to the debate and for their interest in the critical issue of how data has helped to shape our response to the pandemic. I put on record my thanks to PACAC for its work, its report and its very helpful recommendations. The report makes it clear that the Government have

“overseen a remarkable effort pulling together data on Covid 19”,

with

“much of this data and analysis available to the public”.

It repeatedly refers to the Government’s openness with data, noting:

“The Government has responded to requests for new data and improved access to evidence.”

I also put on record my thanks to the civil servants, scientists and partner organisations that have done incredible work over the past 12 months—I think that the authors of the report and all Members of this House would agree with that. They have had to bring together very complex datasets from very different types of science and fuse them together in a way that enables us to be informed and enables Ministers to make decisions. That has been incredibly difficult and they have done it very well.

[Bob Seely]

I know that the Minister does her best to listen. Does she accept that a lot was presented without context? This was very complicated, but, looking back, I think it could have been done in a way that gave much greater context and greater openness to the debate.

[Penny Mordaunt]

Certainly. I shall acknowledge some of the things that hon. Members have raised; I do think we need to learn from the past 12 months and look at how in future we can do this better, although God forbid we are ever in this particular situation again. As a Minister—I know my colleagues feel the same—I am always looking to continually improve and build on what we know works.

I also put on record my thanks to the House of Commons. When I was preparing to come before the Committee, I looked at what the House had done with the data that the Government produce; it has done a fantastic job in trying to inform colleagues about what is going on through the hub on our intranet, so I thank the staff of the House.

The Chair of PACAC, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), raised several points. I will not relive my evidence session with the Committee, but in defence of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, whose attendance several colleagues raised, he has a huge in-tray to deal with—this week he has been overseas as part of his responsibilities with regard to passports. I am developing a complex because every time I come before a Committee or appear in the Chamber, people are always keen to tell me that they are very disappointed to see me. I know that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is very alive to the issues that have been raised; I think he is coming before the Committee soon and has had considerable correspondence with it.

[Mr Harper]

On ministerial accountability, I accept that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is incredibly busy, but it is the central responsibility of Ministers, however busy they are, to be accountable to this House; that includes the Prime Minister, who spends hours in front of the Liaison Committee. Nothing is more important than Ministers’ accountability to the House and Members’ responsibility on behalf on the public. Since the Paymaster General mentions the Chancellor of Duchy of Lancaster’s trip to Israel, where no doubt he is discussing vaccine passports, could she answer my question about the Government’s proposal on the decision that it will put to this House, so that we can rule out any of the shenanigans that we have read about in the newspapers?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I am fairly confident that I can flatten any suggestion of shenanigans in that regard. These are not only very distinct issues, but conditional on very distinct things. What we do on international travel, over and above our own border controls, is clearly contingent on work with international partners. The World Health Organisation will be developing and thinking about schemes that it might put in place for a covid equivalent of the yellow fever card. Those are clearly very different from the domestic issues that my right hon. Friend refers to; I know that people would not want to conflate them and that it would be unhelpful to do so. I think that I can confidently say that.

Many Members touched on the complex balance between fighting the virus and trying to mitigate its impact on people’s livelihoods, mental and physical health, and freedoms. That is why this is obviously such a complex situation.

The hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) raised many issues, but two in particular. On preparedness, she will know that I published the latest iteration of the national risk register on 18 December last year. External bodies welcomed that and said it was an improvement on its predecessors. On local information, she will remember from my evidence to the Committee that I was very robust in agreeing with her that people who have been in the frontline of this response are the local resilience forums, the local authorities, and our local health and care services. Giving them the data they need to make decisions is absolutely critical. As the crisis has gone on, we have got better and better about giving them information and sharing information, because this is obviously a two-way process.

It is also vital that members of the public can go on the public health website and look up in their area, right down to ward level, the number of positive cases, virus tests conducted, hospitalisations, death rates, and admission figures for both ordinary bed occupancy and mechanical ventilator bed occupancy. They can see all that data. That is not just good for transparency’s sake; it is a hugely motivating factor in getting people to follow the advice of the chief medical officer. Our actions are not just helping the nation; they are helping their neighbours and the nurses who are looking after people in their local hospital. They are helping their friends and neighbours.

[Karin Smyth]

I am really grateful for the Minister’s comments, but may I write to her on the issue I raised with regard to public health clinicians in local authorities being able to access to NHS data? Will she liaise with her colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care on that important issue? If she can give me an assurance that she will look at that if I write to her, I would be grateful.

[Penny Mordaunt]

Certainly. I hope that some of the questions I have already raised with colleagues may pre-empt that. I know there are requests from local authorities on issues such as encouraging people to take up the vaccine, when they want to ensure they are able to get good data and are able to work together to encourage people who have yet to come forward to do that. These issues are very important, and I will be very happy to take up the hon. Lady’s suggestions.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely)—I thank him for his kind words—raised issues about quality control and how we present data, which I agree with. I think people have learnt all sorts of things about how to present data and slides in a way that is suitable for television, and a whole raft of other issues. My right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West reminds us that our audience is sophisticated—they can accept that there will be gaps and that we will learn things as we go through the pandemic—and that we should bear that in mind as well.

A couple of hon. Members raised the issue of lagging data. There will be pieces of information that, by their very nature, have a lag, for example between people being infected and being admitted to hospital. Again, we have to set the context and ensure that we explain what particular information is demonstrating, that we make the best judgments on that, and that Ministers are informed when they are given data.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight framed an argument about covid being a cause of death versus other causes of death. I am very conscious of that. Before this debate I was reading an incredibly sad story of a double suicide. A young woman without access to the post-natal care she needed took her own life. Her mother then took her own life. We are all aware of the incredibly sad stories and the devastating things that have happened to families during this time. Also, the actions we have taken to control the virus are about keeping health services going, as well as covid being a cause of death; I think sometimes we lose sight of that.

I want to turn to some of the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) raised. The impact on businesses is absolutely at the forefront of our mind, and as well as the data we are looking at what more we can do to help businesses to keep going. Just this week, I have been asked to support Ministers in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on the issue of the wedding sector as we go into this critical period, in order to keep that sector strong and ensure that it has a good summer season. This is not just about the guidance and the rules that we put together; it is also about the lead-in times that people need to make their decisions. Those issues are not lost on us.

[Steve Brine]

Will the Minister give way?

[Penny Mordaunt]

Can I just make a little progress?

My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock also spoke about care homes. Since 12 April, people in care homes have been able to have two visitors, but she is right to say that this has been a really difficult time for those in palliative care and for people with a learning disability or behavioural disabilities. We are in happier times now with regard to care, but the restrictions on care services have been very difficult for many people. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) rightly raised issues around presentation, which I agree with. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) made points about SAGE spokesmen, and I will certainly feed that back.

[Steve Brine]

My point was around helping to support the hospitality sector and the weddings industry. At the end of the day, the best way we can help them is to let them trade. They have not been able to trade because of the pandemic. Either we believe in the vaccine or we do not. After 21 June, we will have freedom from the regulations, but the Boomtown festival in my constituency has had to be cancelled this summer. It was due to take place in August, and there is no reason whatsoever why it should not go ahead, but the messages it is getting are mixed and no one is sure whether Ministers actually believe in the vaccine. Does the Minister?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I certainly believe in the vaccine. I am a volunteer on the vaccine programme. There has been a huge effort by science, by manufacturers, by our healthcare services and by the army of volunteers who are not just helping to put the vaccine into people’s arms but directing traffic and doing a whole raft of other things. The vaccine is critical to our having the confidence to unlock, and I encourage everyone to come forward to get it. My hon. Friend is right to say that this is not just about the ability of people to trade; it is also about the chilling factor, particularly in sectors such as the wedding sector, where we need not just to get people back trading but to give people confidence that they will be able to have those events. I can reassure him that that is very much our focus, and we hope to be able to say more on that as we progress through the road map.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I will take just one more intervention, because I know we are short of time.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

There is a very specific reason why many of these outside events will not take place this summer. It is because they cannot get commercial insurance. The insurers simply do not believe that they can take the Government’s word on trust. There has to be sharing of risk, but the Government have dragged their feet for weeks and unless they make a decision now, we will lose July. If they do not make a decision before May, we will lose August, and so on. This has to happen now, because these events are worth at least £2 billion a month.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I am glad I took my right hon. Friend’s intervention. If the Government have a role in this, it is to create a situation where it becomes possible for the insurance sector to provide products.

[Bob Seely]

Will the Minister give way?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I am not going to take any more interventions; I am sorry.

I am very aware of the issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), and I am certainly helping with regard to weddings. I can reassure him that this issue is well understood, and I hope that I will be able to come forward and say a bit more about the wedding sector. I will feed back to my colleagues on the wider insurance point, which I know many colleagues have raised before.

I am going to end there, Madam Deputy Speaker. Forgive me, but I wanted to respond to all the points that I could. I thank colleagues for their interest in this area and the sensible recommendations that have been made. We have acted already on some of them, and we will be bringing forward a response to the full report.

00:00

[Mr Wragg]

May I just say that we always enjoy my right hon. Friend the Minister’s appearances before our Committee, and I would not wish to reduce those in number or diminish them in quality. I say in her defence that we are tired of Ministers being sent to us who have been set up to fail, because they have not been part of the decision-making process. It is not they who are accountable, but rather those who are in more senior positions in those Departments. To continue to treat Committees in such a way is, I am afraid to say—I have resisted saying it so far, although it says it in the report—contemptuous of this House.

This debate has been filled with the usual suspects, and many of us are considered if not slightly eccentric then certainly on the boundaries of madness. We have made these points many times. Fortunately, repetition is not a cardinal sin in this Chamber, otherwise there would be very few of us left.

I thank all members of the Committee for their contribution to this important report, and I thank all those of my hon. and right hon. Friends and, indeed, all hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon. Again in defence of my right hon. Friend the Minister, I am reminded of the words of Teddy Roosevelt in “The Man in the Arena”. I would replace the word “man” with “woman” in this context, but he said:

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles”.

I just wish we were given fewer opportunities to point out those stumbles and give those criticisms. It is a challenge to each of us as a Member of this House, whether Government or Opposition, to provide that legitimate challenge. I have understood the restrictions on how we have conducted our business, but the first rule of the game is to show up, and now that we can do so safely, I urge all Members of the House to start turning up again to this place and to urge the House authorities to get a move on so that we can conduct our affairs properly and hold the Government rightfully to account.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Eighth Report of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Government transparency and accountability during Covid-19: The data underpinning decisions, HC 803.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I will briefly suspend the House in order that arrangements can be made for the next item of business.

00:02

Sitting suspended.

Human Rights: Xinjiang

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

14:41

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region are suffering Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide; and calls on the Government to act to fulfil its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide and all relevant instruments of international law to bring it to an end.

It is a privilege to open this important debate on an historic motion. I want to put on record my thanks to the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, and in particular Luke de Pulford, for co-ordinating MPs around the world, keeping the Uyghurs high on the agenda of national Parliaments.

Today’s historic debate would not have been possible without a key ally to the Uyghurs, and the one sponsor of the debate who would have been so proud of us all here today for doing the right thing—I hope—at 5 o’ clock. That is my mentor and dear friend, the late Dame Cheryl Gillan. Dame Cheryl was a phenomenal woman—a woman who kept men in this place in their place, and I wish the record to note that this debate is in her honour. I hope that today this House will do her proud.

I am one of the five MPs sanctioned by the Chinese Communist party. Those sanctions were an attempt to silence and intimidate us, to prevent us from raising the growing evidence of the abuse faced by the Uyghurs.

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that when a national Government sanctions one Member of Parliament in this place, that national Government is actually sanctioning all Members of Parliament in this place, and that it is incumbent on us all—all 650 of us—to stand as one at this moment?

[Ms Ghani]

My hon. Friend could not have put it more perfectly. I believe that sanctioning five MPs for raising human rights abuses was sanctioning this House and asking it to stop raising human rights abuses in Xinjiang. The whole House needs to act as one.

The fact that we are here today, having this debate, shows that the sanctions simply have not worked. I can only assume that my sanctions followed my campaigning on the genocide amendment to the Trade Bill, and my Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee report, which exposed that Xinjiang is a Uyghur slave state, and recommends that we blacklist UK firms putting slave-made products on our shelves. As we all know, basic checks and transparency standards cannot be guaranteed in Xinjiang, so businesses find it difficult to guarantee that they are slave labour-free. Let us just cut to the chase and blacklist firms who are linked to Xinjiang unless they are, uniquely, able to offer adequate proof that they are slave labour-free. The British customer does not want to be duped into putting money in the pocket of firms profiting from slave labour. I hope the Minister can wholeheartedly support the rest of the recommendations in the Select Committee report.

I also want to put on record my thanks and offer solidarity to Dr Jo Smith Finley, a senior academic who was also sanctioned for sharing what she witnessed in Xinjiang, along with a legal firm and research group. When the CCP tries to control UK groups and individuals speaking freely about their research and legal opinions, it is our responsibility and duty to speak truth to power in this place, where we are afforded protection that others may not have. The sanctions are not only an attack on us as individuals but an attempt to stifle the free and open debate that is at heart of our hard-won parliamentary democracy. If the CCP is still in doubt about what our leadership thinks of the sanctions, let me quote our very own Prime Minister, who said:

“Freedom to speak out in opposition to abuse is fundamental and I stand firmly with them.”.

Today, I am asking the House to consider whether the grounds for genocide are met. I know that colleagues are reluctant to use the word “genocide”. For many, the word will be forever associated with the horrors of Nazi concentration camps. I agree with colleagues that we should never diminish the unique meaning and power of the term by applying it incorrectly, but there is a misunderstanding that genocide is just one act—mass killing. That is false. Article 2 of the United Nations genocide convention says that genocide is

“any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.

There are three points that I want colleagues to note. First, genocide is measured against intent. Secondly, intent to commit any one of the five acts of genocide is sufficient. Thirdly, and fundamentally, all five acts of genocide are evidenced as taking place in Xinjiang. Therefore, while we must never misuse the term “genocide”, we must not fail to use it when it is warranted.

I will shortly return to the horrific examples to support my motion, but let me first remind the House why we are stuck in the trenches and why I am asking us today to help dig us out and free the Uyghur people. The Government state that genocide can be determined only a competent court. Every route to a court is blocked by China. That means that, despite the Foreign Secretary stating that

“the human rights violations being perpetrated in Xinjiang against the Uyghur Muslims is…far-reaching. It paints a…harrowing picture”—[Official Report, 12 January 2021; Vol. 687, c. 160.]

our Government are handcuffed, paralysed by the UN. We need to take back control. Our route to declaring genocide cannot be controlled by China.

Let me briefly present the evidence to support my motion: the five acts of genocide. Act 1 is:

“Killing members of the group”.

As Dr Smith Finley notes, in the massacre of 2014, up to 3,000 Uyghurs

“were allegedly killed by security forces”,

according to exiles. Separately, as Essex Court Chambers noted in its landmark 100-page legal case, there were reports that an unknown number of detainees died in the camps due to

“poor living conditions and a lack of medical treatment.”

Following the publishing of that opinion, the CCP sanctioned the chambers.

Act 2 is:

“Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group”.

Fifty legal experts in international law have determined that every marker of genocide is met. The Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy found:

“Uyghurs are suffering serious bodily and mental harm from systematic torture and cruel treatment, including rape, sexual abuse, exploitation, and public humiliation, at the hands of camp officials and Han cadres assigned to Uyghur homes under Government-mandated programs. Internment camps contain designated ‘interrogation rooms,’ where Uyghur detainees are subjected to consistent and brutal torture methods, including beatings with metal prods, electric shocks, and whips. The mass internment and related Government programs are designed to indoctrinate and ‘wash clean’ brains.”

That is from 50 global experts.

Act 3 of genocide is:

“Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”.

President Xi has said so many words, including about showing “absolutely no mercy”. How is he doing that? Credible reports indicate that up to 2 million people are extrajudicially detained in prison factories and re-education centres, and I dread to think of the impact of a lack of proper medical care during a pandemic.

Act 4 is imposing measures intended to prevent births within a group. Unless the Minister can provide evidence to the contrary, I do not believe there is any other place on earth where women are being violated on this scale. “The Handmaid’s Tale” is a fairytale compared with the reproductive rights of Uyghur women. That abuse is evidenced by the Chinese Government’s own data. In 2014, more than 200,000 birth control devices were inserted in women in Xinjiang, and by 2018 the number had increased by 60%. Despite the region accounting for just 1.8% of China’s population, 80% of all birth control device insertions in China were performed in the Uyghur region. That explains why, in one of the region, birth rates are down 84%. Even more chillingly, China no longer shares the data by ethnicity, as it tries to scrub away the evidence. Time is running out for the Uyghur, especially the women.

Finally, act 5: forcibly transferring the children of the group to another group. This unique barbarism of the CCP is a slow-motion genocide. It is hard to believe that it is doing that as a final act of horror. The New York Times reported, from public CCP data, that nearly half a million children have been separated from their families. That is key, as it shows the CCP’s intent to strip children from their parents, basically disrupting intergenerational linguistic, cultural and faith transmission. Let me quote the CCP again:

“Break their lineage, break their roots”.

I do not expect the Minister to have any arguments to dispute any of the evidence that I have put forward today. I do expect to hear from the Dispatch Box, considering the crimes, how the Foreign Office will fully co-operate with the independent Uyghur tribunal of Sirusb Geoffrey Nice, QC.

We are not alone. Countries around the world are declaring genocide, and Parliaments in Europe are watching us today and will take our lead. At a previous genocide debate, when we were shamefully denied a vote, I quoted the late Rabbi Sacks. When he was asked where was God during the holocaust, he responded that the question is not: where was God? The question is: where was man? Men and women in this House—the mother of all Parliaments—will do all we can to ensure that atrocities like the holocaust can never again take place.

14:52

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) [V]]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani). I congratulate her on obtaining this debate and on the excellent work she has been doing with the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and on the Trade Bill. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Uyghurs, I pay tribute to the many colleagues who have been working with us over the past few years to raise awareness of the seriousness of the situation in Xinjiang.

This House has repeatedly heard evidence of sterilisation, mass extrajudicial internment, organ harvesting and modern-day slavery. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary himself described them as abuses “on an industrial scale” and as “mass torture”. I will not repeat the stories here, because I know colleagues will be talking about them in detail, but we should not have to tell them again and again to get action. I wish to use my time to put a few questions to the Minister.

First, it has become clear to all of us that the Government’s policy on genocide is untenable. They cannot continue to insist that the determination of genocide is for the courts, knowing that there is no court that can actually hear these cases. The current policy far predates the current Government. We should be honest about this and look beyond party politics. It has become an embarrassment to Ministers. It is patently absurd to insist on this being a matter for courts, which will be blocked from acting. Can the Minister tell us what plans the Government have to review and reform this policy?

Secondly, the Minister will know that Sir Geoffrey Nice, QC, has convened a tribunal to conduct an independent and credible interrogation of the evidence. Will he confirm that the Government will do everything possible to co-operate with the Uyghur tribunal, including providing evidence and agreeing to take seriously what will be a rigorous and impartial judgment when the process is complete? Our all-party parliamentary group has written to the Minister about this twice but so far has received no response.

Thirdly, we know that in 2016 Beijing installed Chen Quanguo as secretary of Xinjiang. Within a year, he had turned it into probably the world’s most heavily policed region. When the Government finally announced the Magnitsky sanctions, why did they leave out the organ grinder, Chen Quanguo? He is believed to be the architect of the Xinjiang atrocities and, indeed, those in Tibet. We are now in a position of having sanctioned the entity he runs and helped to turn into an instrument of oppression—the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps—but not Quanguo himself. Surely the Minister must see that this is not rational. The United States has sanctioned him. Will this Government commit today to sanctioning him as well?

When I set up the APPG on Uyghurs in 2019, I was contacted by an official from the Chinese embassy, who I agreed to meet in order to discuss the then recently built internment camps. The Chinese official was quick to remind me that the west has no moral high ground to lecture China, given our own interventions in history—indeed, he sent me several emails to that effect—but to engage in whataboutery is to deny and distract from the point.

Since 1948, we have witnessed genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur, northern Iraq and now China and Myanmar. That is not an exhaustive list. Indeed, some grave crimes against humanity go unreported in the mainstream media and are never classified as genocide. The response to these atrocities has always been inadequate. Whenever a genocide takes place, there is a collective wringing of hands, but the promise to break the relentless and devastating cycle of genocide has never materialised. How many times have we heard the words “never again”?

This has gone on long enough. The Minister will be aware that the United States has recognised this as genocide. The Canadian House of Commons, the Dutch Parliament and others have declared it to be genocide. A 25,000-page report by over 50 international lawyers says that what is happening in Xinjiang is genocide, with every single one of the criteria in the 1948 United Nations convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide being breached. The UK’s policy on genocide risks us defaulting on our obligation under the genocide convention. Let us pass this motion today, and I urge the Government to act on it.

14:59

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on securing this debate and leading on the BEIS Committee inquiry and the excellent report on which this debate is based. It is a remarkable feat to have done both. I concur with my hon. Friend’s tribute to our right hon. Friend Dame Cheryl Gillan: I came into Parliament at the same time as her and she was simply a remarkable woman. It was right to mention her in this debate because she stood with us on every one of the votes that we had in the recent debates on genocide. Even though she was ill and housebound, she stayed with us throughout; that shows some courage and some bravery and I salute her for that.

I want to raise one thing before I come to the other points of debate. I have been listening to people over the past week, and I now worry about the environment, which may seem a peculiar issue to raise first but I would like my hon. Friend the Minister to take note of this. I have noticed a number of people saying how important and vital it is—of course—for China to be involved in and sign up to all these pledges on the environment. My slight worry is that China will use the process to leverage any action that we may wish to take, so I want to make sure that when we talk about China and the environment, we no longer try to use it as a balancing point for why we should not take action against China in areas such as the genocide against Uyghur women, the treatment of Tibetans, the appalling treatment of inner Mongolians, the treatment of Christians, the organ harvesting of the Falun Gong and the treatment of other groups. All are abuses that must be called out: whether or not we need China to co-operate on other matters, we cannot simply say that one matter is worth some sacrifice over the other. It is not, and I for one will continue to call that out.

Let me come back to the main points of the debate, which are the ones raised by the Select Committee. They are really important points and my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden touched on a number of them. I wish to highlight a couple. First, Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, whose inquiry is ongoing, has said that his inquiry is

“certain—unanimously, and sure beyond reasonable doubt—that in China forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience has been practiced for a substantial period of time involving a very substantial number of victims.”

That is the organ harvesting of victims in the power of the state. I thought that we, collectively as nations, decided never ever to see this happen again. In the 1940s, Nazi Germany practised organ harvesting and strange science on people in captivity—mostly the Jewish people, but others, too. How can we hear that and lock it away in a box? It is astonishing that we should even be thinking that it is just an item for debate. It is not. It is redolent of the terrible times that we and others went through, and we decided never again. But it is again, and on an industrial scale.

The Conservative party human rights commission report shows four years of human rights deterioration in China between 2016 and 2020. The Select Committee report clearly identifies how Uyghur slave labour operates in supply chains. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden said, the 84% drop in birth rates is significant and shows categorically that forced sterilisation is taking place.

There are others out there who have been brave enough to call this out. BBC journalists covering mass rape and Uyghur abuse have been driven out of China. I see that even Sky faced up the other day and produced a report about the slave labour and the fact that these people, particularly men, are thousands of miles away from their homes in factories that are hidden from view and denied, but there they are—it is slave labour, forced labour.

The Better Cotton Initiative withdrew from the region in October 2020, citing:

“Sustained allegations of forced labour and other human rights abuses”

leading to

“an increasingly untenable operating environment”.

That is the reality of a wealthy, powerful country that intends to be wealthier and more powerful—perhaps the dominant economy and dominant military power—and that believes it can get away with anything. So far, too often, it has. That is the point of this debate and what the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden was all about. She clearly laid out the definition of genocide: killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent birth within the group, and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. These are the definitions of genocide. On every one of those counts we have evidence to show that a genocide is taking place, specifically of the Uyghur people, but very likely, as I said, of others like the Tibetans as well. We know that the Chinese have been killing members of the group and causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. All these things are going on.

If we believe that there is evidence on every one of those counts, the question is: why have we not declared this a genocide? I urge my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government to rethink their position on this. We will not gain any particular friendship by not calling out genocide from the Chinese. It is simply not a tradeable item. The UK has said endlessly, and I understand this, that only a competent court can declare a genocide. That was absolutely the original plan, but the problem is that getting to a competent court is impossible. At the United Nations it is impossible to get to the International Court of Justice. It is impossible to get to the International Criminal Court because China is not a signatory to that and therefore will not obey it, and anyway we will not be able to do that because it will be blocked in the debates at the UN. The whole purpose of the belt and road project is to protect China from any action taken at the UN. It has now collected a coalition of nations that are being given huge sums of money by it. In many cases, they vote with it in the UN regardless on matters like these.

Therefore, we have a problem—how can we get there? The only way, really, is what other countries have taken to doing now. The United States has made it clear that it believes that this is a genocide. Holland has followed suit and so has Canada. I hope, therefore, that today we will do so too. If we think that the American Administration that has just come in is going to somehow walk away from the previous Administration on this, it is worth quoting what is being said in the United States. The new Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, said:

“My judgment remains”—

he is referring to the statement by Mike Pompeo, his predecessor—

“that genocide was committed against the Uyghurs and that has not changed.”

So now two Administrations in America line up behind this and still stand up for it. On 22 February 2021, Canada’s Parliament voted unanimously on a motion to declare the situation in Xinjiang a genocide. On 25 February 2021, the Dutch Parliament, the States General, passed a non-binding motion declaring that the treatment of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang amounts to a genocide. What do we have to know? We have to have significant reports, witness testaments, satellite imagery and Chinese local governmental data, and we have all of that. It is out there in the public domain now, and more and more is being

collated.

Let us think a little bit about the victims, whose relatives are out on the square today protesting about their treatment, and who speak terribly of what has happened. The former detainee Tursunay Ziawudun said that every night they were removed from their cells and raped by one or more masked Chinese men. She went on to say that she was tortured and later gang-raped on three occasions, each time by two or three men. That is the evidence that we need as part of our statement that this is a genocide, and that evidence exists. That is but one of a whole series of people who have given such evidence, so we have to hold China to account.

Others want to speak, so I conclude by saying to my hon. Friend that, today, this Parliament has a historic chance, together—regardless of party difference in most other matters—to hold its head up, stand tall and stand for those who have no voice. We, the mother of all Parliaments, should today take pride in the fact that if this motion goes through unopposed, it is the voice of the United Kingdom Parliament—the Parliament of a free people, who believe in human rights and in freedom and human rights for others around the world. Let us make the statement today, loud and clear, that the UK has not forgotten the Uyghurs and others, and that we will stand for them and insist that our Government do exactly the same by calling this a genocide.

15:10

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on securing this debate and on all the work that she has been doing on this matter. The most distressing and horrific persecution taking place today is that of the Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, China. I remind the House that Muslims are currently observing the holy month of Ramadan—a month of fasting, reflection, charity and prayer. It pains me that millions of Uyghur Muslims are facing some of the harshest abuses that one can imagine during this holy period.

As vice-chair of the all-party group on Uyghurs, I have been highlighting the plight of Uyghur Muslims for several years and have heard, at first hand, harrowing testimonies from survivors, family members and those who have witnessed what I can only call inhumane and chilling human rights abuses. The Chinese Government appear to be engaged in what some experts are calling a campaign of demographic genocide. I fear that the gravity of my words and efforts are simply not being matched by the world’s reaction and, more worryingly, by this very Government.

Members know already that the persecution of the Uyghurs is not new. For decades, they have faced repression at the hands of the Chinese Government, but it has escalated to an entirely new scale. Report after report has highlighted the mounting evidence of human rights abuses and shown that Beijing has violated each and every act banned by the United Nations convention against genocide. The action that the Chinese authorities are taking in Xinjiang contravenes China’s own constitutional provisions on freedom of religion and its obligation under the 1948 universal declaration of human rights.

The Foreign Secretary said in January that we should not be doing trade deals with countries committing human rights abuses

“well below the level of genocide”—

yet by rejecting the genocide amendment to the Trade Bill, the Government have done everything they can to protect the UK’s right to do trade deals with potentially genocidal states. Global Britain, it seems, is just empty rhetoric, with no substance.

Because the words “never again” are utterly meaningless if we fail to act, history will remember us, and we have a moral duty to step in and stop these heinous crimes. Powerful interventions from faith communities, including the Board of Deputies of British Jews, have passionately called on the Government to support the genocide amendment, and the Jewish community has even drawn a parallel between the horrors in Xinjiang and the holocaust. Despite that, the Government continue to drag their feet on holding China to account. Instead, they put trade above human rights. They must continue to press the Chinese Government to close detention camps, cease indiscriminate surveillance and restrictions on religion and culture, and allow independent experts and UN officials proper access to Xinjiang.

After the genocides in Rwanda, Srebrenica and Darfur, we said, “Never again.” I hope that we can all agree that we cannot add Xinjiang to that list. I urge the Government not to turn a blind eye to millions of innocent lives because of economic interest.

15:15

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) [V]]

Another day, another debate on the industrial scale of human rights abuses by the Chinese regime. Here we are again, and I am delighted that we are; I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), who has so championed the cause, and wholeheartedly endorse everything she said. Together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and the rest of the magnificent seven parliamentarians, she and I wear our sanctioning with a badge of honour.

I hope that the message has now got through that the productivity of the seven of us has increased sharply since that inept act by the Chinese regime of putting us on the arbitrary and ridiculous sanctions list. Let me tell the Chinese Government: they ain’t seen nothing yet, because this will go on every day of every week that we can possibly raise it in this place and on the platforms afforded to us as parliamentarians. They have really fired us up to make sure that that is a promise we will deliver.

I wholeheartedly support the motion, to which I have added my signature. Although Tibet is not within its strict scope, everything that has been said so far applies to Tibet and its people, who have been oppressed with similar tactics for the last 62 years, since the occupation of that peace-loving people in the Tibetan region of China back in 1959.

I absolutely take up the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green made about the environment. China is guilty of abusing not just its own people, but the planet, more than any other nation on this earth. Neither is acceptable; one is not a trade-off against the other, if that is the attitude that it wants to take when it comes to COP26. Both need to be called out, and on both it needs to mend its ways—they go hand in hand.

It is a shocking reality that genocides have never properly been called out and thwarted at the time that they happen—genocides against the Jews, genocides against the Muslims in Srebrenica, genocides in Rwanda, Cambodia and Darfur, and the many other genocides that go unnamed and are not properly detected, as the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) mentioned. I include in that list the Armenian genocide of 1915 and 1916, when 1 million to 1.5 million men, women and children died at the hands of the Ottomans. On Saturday, in Yerevan and around the world, tributes will be paid and flowers laid; I will do so on behalf of the all-party parliamentary group on Armenia at the Cenotaph tomorrow in commemoration of that terrible genocide, which this country needs to recognise, more than 100 years on.

We talk about debating the subject. Under article I of the UN convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, the United Kingdom is obliged, along with all other UN members,

“to prevent and to punish”

genocide—not just to talk about it, although it is good that we are doing that, but actually to do something about it.

We have heard all the clear evidence on what is going on in Xinjiang province; I will not repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden said. We know that China formally recognised the Uyghurs as an ethnic minority among its exhaustive list of the no fewer than 56 ethnic groups that comprise its population, along with the Tibetan people. Under China’s own constitution, those minorities and their cultures and identities should be protected, but they are being obliterated. China is trying to assimilate them within its main population, so whatever we may think in terms of international law, it is falling foul of its own constitution. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) said, the Chinese regime, in doing what it has done to suppress free speech, has committed an act against this Parliament and the privileges that we have in this Parliament. It is a naked act of aggression against free speech.

It is clear that what is happening is genocide. My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden put it starkly: if a state-orchestrated and race-targeted birth rate plunge of two thirds in two years is not genocide, what is? If mass internment, slave labour, systematic rape, torture and live organ harvesting, mass sterilisation, womb removal, forced abortion, secretly located orphan camps, brainwashing camps and the psychological trauma of these combined atrocities do not amount to genocide, under any of the definitions, what does? There is a saying, “If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and walks like a duck, it is a duck.” This sounds like, looks like and is genocide, and it needs to be called out loud and clear for what it is.

I urge the Minister again, who has been very supportive. We are very grateful for the very supportive words of the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister, who I am glad to see here again today, and of the Speaker and the Lord Speaker in support of the magnificent seven. But why, oh why, are we not going further in the sanctions against people who are clearly guilty of waging genocide on other Chinese citizens? Chen Quanguo absolutely needs to be on that list; he has been committing genocide against the Uyghurs since 2016, having learnt and plied his trade in Tibet against the Tibetans before that.

We need to do more to support those businesses that are being thrown out of Xinjiang and that are in some cases taking a stand. We need to have a proper audit of our universities and schools. I hear that the Prebendal School in Chichester, in my own diocese, is now under threat of being taken over by the Chinese, and this is on top of no fewer than 17 senior schools around the UK that are now under the control of senior Chinese figures in the Chinese communist party. This is happening in our country, on our watch. We need to flush it out; we need to put the spotlight on it.

The contacts the Chinese have within our military research and their activities within our infrastructure projects—we have to have a full and thorough audit of the tentacles of the Chinese regime in UK society up and down this country. There are still artificial intelligence firms with links to persecution of Uyghurs funding research at British universities. They are funding places at PhD and post-doctoral research positions at Surrey University, for example, despite having been placed on a US blacklist in 2019. I pay tribute to the University of Manchester, which cancelled an agreement with the Chinese electronic company CETC after warnings that it supplied the tech platforms and apps used by Beijing’s security forces in the mass surveillance of the Uyghurs. We need to do more to make sure we are not aiding and abetting these parts of the Chinese regime.

Last month, the Foreign Office admitted that the Uyghurs were being harassed and abused in the UK itself, so it is not just happening within China. As the Foreign Secretary said, this is being done to intimidate them into silence, and they are being urged to report on other Uyghurs to the police.

Rahima Mahmut, the UK director for the World Uyghur Congress, who has bravely stood up and is one of the mouthpieces for the Uyghur population here, was in Parliament Square earlier. In an article in The Telegraph, she gave some chilling examples of Uyghur exiles in this country being intimidated by the long tentacles of the Chinese regime while in the supposed safety of this country. Those exiles are ominously reminded that they have relatives back in China. A Uyghur woman received texts every day from the Chinese police urging her to spy on other Uyghurs in the UK and saying, “Remember, your mother and your sisters are with us.”

This regime does not stop at its own borders and we need to stand shoulder to shoulder and offer whatever support we can to protect those Uyghur refugees, Tibetan refugees and other victims of oppression by China who find themselves in this country. They deserve our safety and our succour, and we need to give them more to protect them from the dangers that they are going through.

I also urge the Minister: we should be encouraging our diplomats to speak out. Last week, I cited the example of the new British ambassador in Beijing who had been hauled over the coals for just mentioning the free press to the Chinese Government. John Sudworth, the BBC correspondent in Beijing, has had to flee from Beijing, after reporting on human rights abuses, because of fears for his own safety and the safety of his family. We must encourage these people to continue to speak out.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Given that list of people and organisations that have called things out, does my hon. Friend not find it strange that no UK university that is receiving funds from the Chinese has condemned any of the action that is going on publicly, or, for that matter, condemned the action of the Confucius Institutes, which spy on Chinese students in universities?

[Tim Loughton]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have long been calling out the Confucius Institutes, which are not only on the campuses of UK universities, stuffing gold into the mouths of vice-chancellors, but, increasingly, in our schools as well. When I visited a secondary school in my constituency, which teaches Mandarin, I was alarmed to see that it now has a Confucius Institute classroom sponsored by the Chinese. The Chinese are not doing this because they just like to be nice to our schools; they are doing it because they have an agenda and they are trying to control people around the world and suppress people who want to speak out against them.

I echo the closing words of my right hon. Friend. Today, we stand up in this place for those without any voice. That is an advantage of being a parliamentarian—we use our voice to stand up for, speak out for and protect those without a voice and those who are in danger. Let us, with that voice—loudly and clearly—make sure that this motion goes through today to show China once and for all that it has been called out, that there will be consequences, and that there are consequences, for its industrial scale abuse of human rights, and that, in this country at least, freedom and the freedom of speech, of faith and of worship count for something and it had better acknowledge that.

15:26

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on bringing this debate to the House today and on continuing to stand up for what is right.

China’s modernisation and rise to being a global power has been the defining phenomenon of the last 40 years, but not all communities and peoples under the control of Beijing have benefited from that rise. The Chinese Communist party has been ruthless in response to any perceived threats to its ideology and control. The tanks in Tiananmen Square were symbolic of a process that has continued largely unnoticed until the very public crushing of Hong Kong’s defence of democracy.

Today’s debate is about the persecution of the traditionally Muslim Uyghurs of Xinjiang province. It is about a genocide taking place right now. But, as we have heard, many Members also share concerns about Chinese actions in Tibet and there are close links between the two communities in the UK.

Today, I would like to highlight, yet again, the work of a new campaign group co-founded by my constituent, Kirsty Robson. It challenges us to learn lessons from the holocaust and to break the cycle of impunity for perpetrators that allows atrocities to continue. Its work is very much needed now.

I also want to acknowledge BBC journalist John Sudworth, who was driven out of China last month by harassment following BBC coverage of China’s persecution of the Uyghurs. Thanks to John and his work and the bravery of others in speaking out, we know that 1 million or more Uyghurs are interned in detention and re-education camps in Xinjiang province—camps that are dedicated to achieving transformation through education. It is where Uyghur traditions, beliefs and language are intensively undermined and the Uyghur community as a whole is treated like a terrorist network to be squashed.

The existence of those camps is admitted by the Chinese Government, who describe them as “voluntary”. That is completely lacking in credibility, and we have heard today the horrific reality of the vast numbers of deaths and the terrible treatment in those camps. Alongside the camps there is widespread slave labour, with hundreds and thousands of Uyghurs and other minorities forced to work in vast cotton fields and factories, the produce of which is undoubtedly—and mostly unchecked—feeding through into major UK stores. I am confident that consumers would be appalled if they realised that.

When bureaucracies and armies are given free rein and there is no accountability, women and children are very often on the receiving end of atrocities. That is what has happened in Xinjiang following a visit by Xi Jinping in 2014, when he urged tough action against the Uyghur population in response to a terrorist attack. Since then there have been more reports of forced sterilisation as a means of population control, reports of systemic rape, torture of women in camps, and children being taken from their families and sent to state orphanages and boarding schools to break family and cultural ties.

Thanks to the work of Yet Again, I was able to hear the personal story of Uyghur activist Rahima Mahmut, who has lived in the UK since 2000. What she expressed was chilling. She also tells of the crushing of peaceful demonstrations in her home town of Ghulja in the 1990s, and of the pressure on the families of those who have sought refuge abroad. Her report shows that while Chinese authorities claim to target religious extremists, they really see any practising Muslim there as an enemy. Their actions make a real mockery of China’s constitutional protection of religious belief.

East Renfrewshire is home to Scotland’s largest Jewish community, and every year I join events on and around Holocaust Memorial Day, which is a privilege and always gives me significant pause for thought. That is when we reflect on that dreadful event and say “never again.” But here we are, knowing that a genocide is unfolding—let us be clear: that is what it is—and yet the UK Government seem unwilling to do anything about it beyond ritual diplomacy.

We must recognise and act on the atrocities facing the Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in China. They cannot be ignored as the UK scrambles for trade deals. To help achieve that, yet again we are partnering with the Scottish Council for Jewish Communities to hold an event for the Jewish community to find out more about what is happening to the Uyghurs. We should all, including the Chinese Communist party, take a lead from that determination to learn the lessons from history. This must stop, and it is our responsibility to stand up and be counted to make that happen now.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

While I am not introducing a time limit at this moment in time, may I ask everybody to look at about five minutes, please? Please do not exceed that, and then we can try and get everybody in.

15:32

[Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) [V]]

In 1948 the UK, along with other countries right around the world, signed the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. It was a commitment that this country made towards ensuring that the atrocities perpetrated during the second world war would never happen again, and yet 73 years later we find ourselves hearing of the horrors facing the Uyghurs in the autonomous region of Xinjiang. Removing the thin guise of tackling terrorism and separatism, we have heard the truth of what is really happening in that region’s education—re-education—camps. Numerous robust and independent reports over a number of years lay bare the overwhelming evidence that the Chinese Government are interning the Uyghur people on a mass scale, subjecting them to brutal forced labour and physically and psychologically abusing them.

I pay tribute to my colleagues who, despite intense intimidation, have worked tirelessly to raise the plight of the Uyghurs in this House, and have spoken movingly and with great knowledge and skill, asking the Government to honour their commitments under the Genocide convention. We are all aware, given the veto that China has at the UN Security Council, of the challenge that the International Court of Justice faces to be able to pronounce that genocide is occurring in Xinjiang. In light of that, like all western countries, we need to think very carefully and critically about our current and future relationship with China. That is particularly so on issues of trade, investment and domestic infrastructure and the relationship between our universities and the Chinese Government.

I am not blind to the fact that China is a major player on the world stage and that we have been told this is an ever-increasingly globalised world, although I think that that is no longer an assertion beyond challenge. However, as British politicians it is our duty to stand up and speak for those who have been silenced. The motion from my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) is an attempt at just that, but it also serves a wider awareness-raising purpose. It ought to prompt the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Department for International Trade to reflect on the role that our embassy teams in China have in terms of promoting trade, particularly in sensitive areas.

Digital and energy security are the most obvious of those, and clear moves to reassess the wisdom of our country’s links and reliance in those fields are already visible, but another area quite rightly coming under the spotlight is education. It is a mistake to allow action over what is going on in Xinjiang to be restricted to that area alone. It is about China, its economy, its Communist leadership as a whole and about our Government, but it is also about wider British societal responses to those abuses. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) wrote powerfully and convincingly in The Daily Telegraph recently about the need for the UK university sector to change its approach to China. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has added to that here today.

The independent international education sector also needs to give the matter serious consideration. I wrote about that for the Independent School Management Plus magazine as chairman of the all-party group on independent education some months ago. At the weekend, The Times quoted me and others in warning of the dangers, moral and financial, of our independent schools setting up satellite schools in China given the human rights abuses in Xinjian most starkly of all, but also in Tibet and Hong Kong, and the increasing menace towards Taiwan. It is highly relevant today in terms of what ought to be done.

I have some sympathy for schools that set up in China 10, 15 or 20 years ago when envisaging a different direction of travel in China and when seeking to be part of it was entirely plausible, but it is much harder to have any sympathy for those seeking to do so afresh now because we know, so clearly, what is going on in Xinjiang and beyond in China. We know that it is no longer possible, in anything more than a merely superficial way, to impart the values of British education and those of the schools and their long and worthy traditions: freedom of thought, racial equality, questioning, liberalism in the best sense of that word, and looking at the truth. They are just not possible in China, including nowadays in Hong Kong. It is akin to seeking to set up a British school in South Africa in 1975 and not worrying about the reputational damage, saying that local rules and customs must be respected and adhered to.

Elsewhere in the world, of course, there are accommodations and compromises to be made in having satellite schools. I am not one of those people who believes that we can morally trade or share educational practice only in exemplar nations such as those in Scandinavia or Australia, New Zealand and Canada. But when the line between authoritarian government and totalitarian government is not only crossed but, via genocide, left way behind as it has been in China, it is time to think again. It is time for the FCDO to reflect on the embassy’s attitude in the educational space in line with that.

I conclude with thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden for all her work in this area and for getting this debate to happen.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Wind ups will start at 4.36 pm with Chris Law who will have six minutes and then the shadow Minister and the Minister will have eight minutes each. At 4.58 pm, Nusrat Ghani has the final two minutes.

15:38

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on securing this incredibly important debate, and Members from across the House on their moving contributions.

What is happening to the Uyghur people in Xinjiang amounts to genocide as defined under the genocide convention. We are all used to assuming that genocide happens quickly—mass graves come to mind—but genocide can also happen more gradually: one baby not born, one identity forever altered by intimidation or indoctrination. On a mass scale it all leads to one end: the erasure of a people. So whatever its pace, it must be stopped.

We have limited time, so in my remarks I want to focus on women and children. Recent evidence has come to light of how Uyghur are being taken from their relatives and placed in state orphanages while their parents are detained. There are stories of children being taken while in school. Imagine that, Mr Deputy Speaker: one minute they are learning their times tables, and the next they are bundled into a car with a stranger and taken to a boarding school. Once they are there, they are forced to undergo political indoctrination, they suffer neglect and they are denied contact with their families, who are often taken to camps at the same time. According to Human Rights Watch, some children are warned that their behaviour could affect their relatives’ prospects of release. There has been a 76% increase in the number of children in Xinjiang’s state boarding school facilities since 2017. That correlates with the expansion of detention camps over the same period. As I am sure the House is aware, a prohibited act under the genocide convention definition of genocide is

“forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

But that is not all; sexual violence is systematically perpetrated on women and girls, as was so powerfully exposed by the BBC. An Associated Press investigation in 2020 found that Uyghur women were subjected to forced regular pregnancy checks, intrauterine devices, sterilisation and abortions. It stated:

“Even while the use of IUDs and sterilization has fallen nationwide, it is rising sharply in Xinjiang.”

Some women have reported being threatened with internment if they refuse to undergo the procedures. In some Uyghur regions, birth rates have fallen in recent years by more than 60%.

Of course, Chinese state media dismiss that and argue that population growth is higher in the Uyghur population than the Han population. However, that comparison is nonsensical. The correct comparison is between the Uyghur population before those interventions and afterwards. Critically, the comparison must be recent—within the last five years, not over the many decades that are often cited.

Birth rates depend on many factors, including social structure, religious beliefs and economic prosperity. While we all appreciate the positive effect that family planning can have in empowering women and promoting development, the key thing is that the woman should have full agency over what happens to her body. They should not be coerced or even forced, as many Uyghur women report. This is not the benign-sounding family planning—oh no; this is state-sponsored policy designed to suppress the population of a minority group for political, not public health, reasons.

It is clear to me that the evidence we have does meet the criteria for genocide in demonstrating a clear

“intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.

They take away their children, indoctrinating boys and girls by making them orphans after kidnapping their parents. They erase their ethnicity through forced marriages. They coerce women to undergo procedures that the women feel they have no choice in.

Of course a full determination and prosecution of genocide should pursued through the United Nations and the international courts—we all agree with that—but while we know that this is going on, how can we ignore it? How can we watch our words and wait until a UN-led investigation is allowed in by a defensive and unco-operative Chinese state? It is not going to happen. Let us not repeat the mistakes of the past, as we did with the Yazidis. In 2016, this place voted to recognise that a genocide was occurring, but then nothing happened and thousands died.

The UK has imposed sanctions on some officials, which is welcome, but the Liberal Democrats want that to be extended. I also want to hear whether the Minister supports a diplomatic boycott of next year’s Beijing winter Olympics. That would send a clear message to the Chinese Government. We have to do more: enough with the hand-wringing; enough prevarication.

If we end up being proved wrong because an independent UN inspector goes in and is allowed to do their work, and it is shown that we all got the wrong end of the stick, I would welcome that. I would rather be wrong now than be on the wrong side of history later.

15:44

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on securing this important debate. I pay tribute to the wonderful and important work that she has been doing on this issue. Human rights abuses in Xinjiang are abhorrent, and I listened painfully to what my hon. Friend said about the disgusting forced sterilisation, and to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said about the equally repugnant organ harvesting. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) spoke with perpetual eloquence on Tibet and other issues related to China.

In the time available, I would like to speak to three brief points: first, the importance of recognising what is happening; secondly, specifically for the Minister, the importance of developing a policy in an inconsistent world that is morally and practically defensible; and, thirdly, what the UK is often very good at, which is building alliances around the world to protect what one might call ethical sustainability for the 21st century.

On the first point—I will be wary of time, Mr Deputy Speaker—we need to recognise the systematic suffering of other human beings whose lives are being damaged because they are being targeted en masse. That is important in itself. As certain Members have already said, we do it for the same reason that we did it in the Balkans and in Syria in recent years. We have done it in past decades in the holocaust and now have started to do with the Ukrainian holodomor—the mass starvation of the Ukrainians in the 1930s by Stalin.

The painstaking recording of death, of lives cruelly ended and of human suffering speaks to a shared ethical core of humanity and our need to record what has happened to other human beings. We do that in memory of the dead, but we also do it in recognition of the living. In relation to Syria, for example, a lot of work done recently by good people tracing the deaths, the murders and the mass slaughters has been funded by the FCDO. I congratulate it on its foresight in that, but it prompts the question whether it will be doing the same in Xinjiang. Might it start doing the same in Tibet, too? That is the first point. We record these things because they need to be recorded.

Secondly, we need a practical policy towards China that is defensible in an inconsistent world. Many improvements have been made to our policy on China in recent years by this Government, and I give them credit. We have moved on from the embarrassment of George Osborne turning up in Xinjiang about 10 years ago—that was just awful. It is nice to have politicians with an ethical strain running through them.

Janus-like, we still have two conflicting policies. One from the Foreign Office pledges to put human rights at the heart of everything we do, but our trade policy seeks to trade without asking too many questions. We have Foreign Ministers, including the Secretary of State, eloquently criticising China while Trade Ministers in the other House ingratiate themselves and dismiss human rights. This is not consistent. We pontificate on Africa, but are strangely silent on central Asia and China. It makes us look foolish and as though our values are somewhat tradeable.

We have heard of the Confucius institutes problem, the endless issues we have with the universities, and the plying for covert influence that China and Russia do in this country. We need policy—domestically and in foreign affairs—that is practical and morally defensible. No one can unilaterally change the world, not even the United States or China and not the UK, but we do have influence, and we need to understand the importance of developing consistency. Okay, we trade with China, but we need to limit our dependency.

I did a report with the Henry Jackson Society. A quarter of our British supply chain is dominated by China. The problem is that if we go further down that route, we end up like New Zealand, in a hell of an ethical mess, with a Prime Minister who virtue-signals while crudely sucking up to China and backing out of the Five Eyes agreement, which is an appallingly short-sighted thing to be doing. On that point, we need to stand shoulder to shoulder with Australia. That is a tired cliché, but the Australians are calling out China, and doing so at trade risk. We need to make sure they do not pay an ethical price, and that brings me to the third point.

The one thing in our strategic culture that we are probably unique at—apart from being an island, which clearly shapes our geography and our outlook on the world—is that we have genuinely been better than any other nation on the planet at building alliances, whether that is from the colonial days or in the days of Europe and Protestants versus Catholics and all that. We need to build alliances for the 21st century. In the 21st century, there are two visions of humanity: there are open and free societies where political leaders are answerable to the people, and there are closed societies, which, through the use of artificial intelligence and big data, are becoming ever-more dominant and threatening to their people. We have to make sure our universal values survive, not only here but globally, so that, despite Russia, China and other regimes, they continue to be the go-to values for humanity for this century.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We have 10 speakers left and there are about 45 minutes, so Members have four and a half minutes. Particularly if Members are speaking remotely, could they please keep an eye on timing devices and bring it in below five minutes?

15:50

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

I stand by the motion before Parliament today and all who are supporting it. The importance of today’s debate grows with each contribution made. On our watch, a nation on this Earth is persecuting its people for their culture and faith, for the hope they carry and for the peace they want to extend. Their rights are being replaced by systematic brutality. In this holy period of Ramadan, Uyghur Muslims in the Xinjiang province in China are being enslaved, tortured and persecuted, away from the public gaze. Technology and testimonies have exposed the zeal of Chinese officials to commit the darkest of atrocities against mankind.

This genocidal state can no longer sweet-talk the world into believing it is a reformed nation, as it has now unmasked its true identity. Through its encroachments in Tibet, Taiwan, Myanmar and now Hong Kong, its true character is being witnessed; it is there for all to see. We are being tested as to how we respond. We in the UK cannot be bystanders, and nor can we let any nation be so. We cannot be content with the few actions taken, since the growing number of horrific testimonies demand our focus and determination.

The Secretary of State says he needs a legal opinion to call China a genocidal state, so without a judgment or a court case, where is his alternative? With all the evidence to determine this genocide, this Parliament must not delay, and nor should this Government; there is no time. Each day, another truck pulls up and someone else disappears, then is stripped, then beaten, then electrocuted, then raped, then—the stories are too distressing. Women are reporting that, through sterilisation and abortion, their future is being denied. Their children are being taken; their lives are sucked from them.

We have sanctioned a few actors, but what about the others? What about those complicit with Xinjiang? Where is the curbing of their actions and inactions? We must talk trade, too. I know that the Minister says it is difficult. Of course it is difficult. They have drawn us into the web of their trading landscape and extended their tentacles across the globe, anchoring infrastructure, energy, communications, education, tourism, tech and so much more. It is all part of the plan.

Although this Government and the coalition before them were blindsided, it is time to withdraw, insert our commitment to human rights above trade expediency and take the unity of nations with us. To put the responsibility on companies to declare the source of their cotton is a woeful response. We cannot let China off the hook if one of its regions is prosecuting such violence, as the BEIS Committee report has demonstrated. These are heinous crimes against humanity.

It is not just the Uyghur. Christians have been disappearing for decades across China. Churches have closed and pastors have been jailed. It is now rapidly rising up the Open Doors world watch list as one of the most dangerous places for a person to profess their faith. Those who observe Falun Gong are having their organs harvested, and we now understand that Uyghur Muslims are too.

This June, China seeks to stand on the world stage at the G7 as a superpower state. However, unless human rights are advanced, as they must be, the summit here in the UK will only mock us all for being part of China’s pageantry. This is not about companies checking their supply chains; it is about the Government checking their values. It is about the Government holding others to account. It is ultimately about our Government refusing to walk with a regime set on genocide. The chilling, dark history of all genocides resounds in the Uyghurs’ story: none of us knows how many, but it is far too many.

This is not about re-education, abhorrent though that is; it is about enslavement and persecution, and it is the role of this Parliament to amplify this, to extend our warmth to the people of China who are suffering under this regime, and to support the diaspora communities the world over. It is also the purpose of this Parliament to stop crimes against humanity, and I trust that the cry from this debate will move the Government to do everything within their power to stop these atrocities being committed against the Uyghur.

15:55

[Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on securing this debate on one of the most pressing and grave human rights issues of our time.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Those words, often was misquoted and misattributed, can most accurately be traced back to the philosopher George Santayana. They now appear on tablets and plaques in museums, memorials and historical sites across the world. Most pertinently, they can be observed today in the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp—the place where more than 1 million innocent men, women and children tragically lost their lives as a result of state-sponsored wholesale slaughter on an industrial scale. That concentration camp, and the words that can be found in it, should be taken by all of us who value human rights, including me and Members across the House, as a warning of the horror that humans are capable of when we are driven by our most base instincts. Instead of shying away from historical atrocities such as the holocaust, we must all strive to acknowledge and understand how they came to be, so that now and in the future such tragedies can actively be prevented. However, recent history teaches us that that is a lesson that humanity has yet to learn.

Since the holocausts from Rwanda to Cambodia and from Bosnia to Syria, tyrannical and totalitarian regimes have too often been able to discriminate against, persecute and murder segments of their populations with impunity, based on nothing more than someone’s ethnicity or faith. Such actions too easily and too often culminate in mass slaughter and genocide. Looking at the world in which we live today, we really need to examine the evidence of human rights abuses taking place. At this very moment, as is being increasingly and commendably recognised by fellow parliamentarians and foreign officials in democracies around the world, like America, Canada and the Netherlands, the persecution of Xinjiang’s Uyghur people is being thrust to the centre of the global stage.

Despite the best efforts of the Chinese Communist party’s officials and their affiliates via aggressive diplomacy, blatant disinformation, threats and coercion, evidence is mounting that this widespread persecution requires condemnation. From reports of organ harvesting and the forcible sterilisation of women—both heinous in equal measure—to the mass detention of at least 2 million Uyghurs across Xinjiang, which has long been the region of the world that this people called home, the evidence points to the fact that these officials and affiliates have been engaged for several years in verifiable and serious human rights abuses that not only constitute crimes against humanity but contravene article 4 of the People’s Republic of China’s constitution. That article, which supposedly guarantees the equality of all nationalities in China and prohibits any related discrimination or oppression, is undermined by the reported actions of the Chinese Government. Instead of helping to preserve the Uyghur way of life, culture, traditions and language, as enshrined in the constitution, the Chinese Communist party is reportedly actively seeking to destroy them and all those who claim them as their own. While today’s debate rightly focuses on the plight of the Uyghurs, we must not forget the numerous other groups in China also facing persecution, such as the Mongols, the Tibetans and, indeed, the brave Hongkongers.

If we, as Members of this House, wish to demonstrate that we have learnt from the horrors of recent history and show that we understand the meaning of the words “never again”, it is imperative that, where evidence exists of mass human rights abuses and crimes against humanity, such as those against the Uyghur in Xinjiang, it is highlighted, called out, confronted and condemned. That is why this debate, mirroring those being had in other democratic countries, is so important. It is also why I offer my unwavering and wholehearted support to this motion and to my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden, as well as all those other Members of this House and the Lords, academics, individuals and organisations who have been unscrupulously sanctioned by the Chinese Government.

16:00

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart). All the speeches so far have been moving and powerful. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for enabling the debate and particularly congratulate the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on the passion and determination that she has shown on this issue over many months, along with members of the APPG on Uyghurs. I know that this is an issue of great importance for many of my constituents. They want to see MPs and this Government stand up for human rights across the world. One constituent who wrote me to said that we need to

“demonstrate Parliament’s commitment to upholding basic human rights.”

Every year on Holocaust Memorial Day, we confirm that we have a shared responsibility to fight the evils of genocide. Today’s debate is about showing our fundamental commitment to human rights and specifically making clear our opposition to the horrific treatment of the Uyghur people and the other ethnic groups in the Chinese province of Xinjiang. Members have described the state-sponsored arbitrary detention, displacement and forced labour of the Uyghur Muslims and others in the Xinjiang province.

I have time to address only two issues today. The first is the impact of Chinese state policy on women. As was said on foreignpolicy.com,

“Uyghur women are the most vulnerable…Their bodily autonomy has been violated through sexual, medical means and forced labor.”

The evidence is available in numerous reports from many sources which have found that the Uyghur women are raped, sterilised and forced to have abortions. Just reading those reports makes my blood run cold—a feeling that I am sure is shared across the House.

Secondly, I want to touch briefly on trade and the recent report by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee which looked into the supply chain, particularly the concerns that companies across the world were profiting from forced labour in the province of Xinjiang. The link between global consumption and such atrocities is, sadly, not new and has been going on for centuries. I will give just one example. At the turn of the 19th century, we saw slavery in the Belgian Congo, along with forced displacement, arbitrary arrests and many other horrific crimes, while at the same time goods such as rubber flowed out of the Congo into Europe. Back then, campaigners from the Congo and activists across civil society—including, I am proud to say, a member of my family, William Cadbury—stood up in opposition to those atrocities and urged Parliament to act. It is therefore right that today Parliament considers our duty and our role on the world stage in standing up to these horrors.

However, our Government fail to address these serious concerns. On one hand, the Foreign Secretary describes what is happening in Xinjiang as

“barbarism we had hoped was lost to another era”—[Official Report, 12 January 2021; Vol. 687, c. 160.]

and says that we should not be doing trade deals with countries committing human rights abuses

“well below the level of genocide”—[Official Report, 12 January 2021; Vol. 687, c. 168.],

and yet the Government whipped their MPs to vote against the genocide amendment to the Trade Bill. Furthermore, legislation such as section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 needs to be amended to ensure that all companies have a responsibility to prove that their supply chains are free of forced labour, and we must strengthen the sanctions for non-compliance.

I was pleased that my hon. Friends the Members for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) on the Opposition Front Bench called on the Government to impose Magnitsky-style sanctions on officials responsible last year, and the Government finally listened and acted just last month. I welcome the Government’s acting, even if they did take rather a long time to do so, but they need to do more. The Biden Administration have described what is happening in Xinjiang as “acts of genocide,” yet the UK Government struggle to engage constructively in the debate and have to be forced to respond.

If the UK is to be a serious player in the world, our Government need to show leadership, demonstrate our British values and no longer see the issue merely through the prism of protecting the UK’s trade. I will not stand aside and Members here today will not stand aside. Our Government must no longer stand aside in the face of these appalling crimes.

16:05

[Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)]

May I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on securing the debate? There are clearly human rights violations taking place in Xinjiang province in China. They are taking place in an otherwise peaceful nation, perpetrated by a cold, calculating state.

We have seen in Xinjiang the dehumanisation of the Uyghurs. They are subject to mass-surveillance; information is collected from and about them, including by teams who visit their homes. Religious activity has been suppressed. They have died in police custody. Women have been forcibly sterilised. Children have been forcibly transferred to what are euphemistically called “child welfare guidance centres”. More than 1 million have been detained without trial. We have seen Uyghurs herded on to trains to be used as forced labour, and there are widespread claims of torture and rape in labour camps. All the while, the Chinese state has used its advanced propaganda techniques to play down events in an attempt to present a false picture of a happy and contented native population.

Those features of Chinese Government action have been compared to the events of Europe in the 1940s. While I hesitate to use words such as fascist, as they are so often used liberally and misleadingly in public discourse, I do not think such comparisons are too wide of the mark. Events in Xinjiang have been condemned by all right-thinking people, and I certainly join in that condemnation.

There is the question of whether that amounts to genocide. I agree that it probably does. My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) set out well and in detail the criteria under the 1948 convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide and how they might be fulfilled by what has been done. I slightly hesitate. This might appear pedantic, but it is a technical question that requires a technical answer. Genocide is a crime, and it has been described as the crime of all crimes—it is the most heinous act that man can do to man—but there are limits to a Member of Parliament answering that question with authority. It is a legal question. The genocides of the 1940s and the genocides in Bosnia and Rwanda were all adjudicated by courts. This House is not a court. As a Member of Parliament I can express a view on something, but I cannot adjudicate on a matter of genocide in the same way that I cannot adjudicate on, for example, a case of murder. However, I accept that passing a resolution in this House is an important symbolic move, and I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden on bringing the debate to the House.

We have seen action taken by the Government along with international allies to designate individuals responsible for violations and impose sanctions on them, including freezing their assets and travel bans. I appreciate that China’s role in the world makes action through the United Nations difficult, but I urge the Government to view the measures taken so far as the beginning, not the end, of those in this matter, to continue to put the maximum pressure on the Chinese Government, and to do everything we can to ensure that those who perpetrate these awful actions will never get away with it.

16:09

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]]

I absolutely support the motion and congratulate the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on securing the debate. The way China has treated the Uyghur community and other minority groups is abhorrent. That is why I and other hon. Members have spoken in the Chamber again and again to call on the Government to stand up to China and to stand with the Uyghurs.

It is long overdue for the Government to face the fact that what is happening is genocide. The CCP treats the Uyghurs as though they are not human and have no rights. It enslaves them and strips them of their dignity. Its dealings of intimidation and force means that their worth to the Chinese Government is only as much as picking cotton. This is a human rights abuse and must be called out. It is fundamentally wrong that children continue to be kidnapped or stolen from their parents, and women made victims of the most unspeakable and horrific sexual, violent and emotional crimes. This is what we need to do, but what more is happening that we actually do not know about?

This afternoon, we are hearing from hon. and right hon. Members about organ harvesting, rape and so much more. Our country and our Government cannot and must not ignore this, but again and again our country has denied the scale of the atrocities in China. The Government whip their MPs to keep the door open to trading, and have resisted strengthening our anti-slavery laws. After the miserable outcome of the Trade Bill debates, I wondered if our moral credibility could sink any lower, and then yesterday the news broke that the Foreign Office plans to cut foreign aid to China by 95%. Does the Foreign Secretary realise that this is just another blow to the oppressed people already struggling to survive in China? With one hand we are giving our money through trade to the CCP, and with the other hand we are taking it away from the victims of its regime.

A report published last month by the Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy found that the Chinese Government have violated every act in the second article of the Geneva convention. Over 30 global experts contributed to this report, finding China guilty of genocide—we have already heard that in this Chamber—and, in February, a survivor of a Uyghur prison camp said:

“Their goal is to destroy everyone”.

Yet our UK Government think they know best and they know better. The Government must take a stronger stand. Nothing we have said or done so far has made an impact on China’s programme of abuse. We must finally have the courage to condemn it as genocide and to take action to show China we will not tolerate it.

16:12

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on her tireless and unwavering support of the Uyghur and her courageous refusal to be silenced, a sentiment that is of course extended to all those who have spoken out, even at their own personal cost.

How could we stay silent when the world is presented with such overwhelming evidence of gross human rights abuses? Nobody can turn a blind eye. There are accusations of torture, the forced abortion of babies, the sterilisation of women and the removal of their wombs. This must be stated for what it is: a genocide of the Uyghurs is happening before our eyes. Recent reports reveal the inhuman actions of Chinese Government officials in visiting the family members of those who have fled the region and then video-calling them from a relative’s phone threatening punishment for their family. It is persecution, it is manipulation and it is a horrifying 21st-century oppression. If we look on, history will condemn our unforgivable cowardice and ask why those in power did not act.

Last year, over 130 Members across the House joined me in expressing our horror in a letter directly to the Chinese ambassador. The embassy’s reply is truly chilling, stating that we have been “misled by lies of the century, cooked up by anti-China forces”. We are even warned: “It is hoped that UK parliamentarians will see Xinjiang’s development achievement from a comprehensive and objective manner. Do not spread or believe lies and do not take Xinjiang issues as an excuse to interfere in Chinese internal affairs.” Interfere? The flagrant denial of oppression in Xinjiang is almost as terrifying as the rare image or video that filters out. The Chinese Government’s actions must be stated for what they are—an apparatus of control with a systematic and calculated programme of ethnic cleansing against the Uyghur people.

So outraged was I at the embassy’s reply that I shared it directly with the Minister, but his response was just astonishing. He said that he recognised that there were internment camps with over 1 million Uyghurs. He acknowledged reports of forced labour. He noted human rights violations, so he proposed: more research. I say to the Minister that condemning the world’s next superpower is easy. Taking action is much harder.

The Foreign Secretary said in January that we should not be doing trade deals with countries committing human rights abuses

“well below the level of genocide”—

yet by rejecting the genocide amendment to the Trade Bill, the Government have done everything they can to protect the UK right to do deals with potentially genocidal states. Can the Minister explain this rank hypocrisy? Why have only four Chinese officials been sanctioned? Why has the Modern Slavery Act not been strengthened to ensure that UK business supply chains do not include workers subject to forced labour in Xinjiang? And why are we not calling this what it is: a genocide? Is it because he knows the international ramifications of arriving at that definition? A cowardly country could hide behind the linguistic excuse. Shame on us if we choose that path, because this time, no one can say that we did not know.

16:16

[Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) [V]]

When we discuss genocide, we must understand the horrific ordeal that those who are persecuted suffer. Mr Deputy Speaker, imagine having your family and loved ones torn away from you, imprisoned, tortured, raped, sterilised and murdered, all for the crime of being who they were, or being different. Imagine being discriminated against for your belief or being subject to political or ideological indoctrination. For millions alive today, this shared nightmare is their reality and these horrors are just some of the sickening crimes being inflicted upon the Uyghur people, with knowledge, approval and consent from Beijing and the Chinese Communist party.

This is a genocide. More than 1 million Muslims, most of whom are Uyghurs, have been detained, indoctrinated, sterilised and tortured. We have not seen the systematic detention of an ethnic minority group on this industrial scale since the holocaust. This is not only an evil programme, designed to eradicate an entire culture, but an effort to profit off the back of human slavery, suffering and misery. At least 80,000 Uyghurs were transferred from Xinjiang camps to work in factories across China between 2017 and 2019. The report entitled “Uyghurs for sale”, from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, provides a damning insight into these slave factories. One factory in eastern China that manufactures shoes for Nike is equipped with

“watchtowers, barbed-wire fences and police guard boxes.”

These crimes must cease. We, who live free, possess a moral duty to stand up to the Chinese Communist party and uphold the values of pluralism, decency and human rights. Doing nothing in the face of overwhelming evidence would render us complicit in this most monstrous crime. Enough of words alone. If the United Kingdom is to be regarded as a true defender of liberty, freedom and justice, we must act. The International Court of Justice’s position on genocide could not be clearer: the obligation to prevent arises the instant that a state party believes that there is a risk of genocide. The case law states that we are obliged to do all we can to protect the very moment that we reasonably suspect genocide is a serious risk. As parliamentarians, we must do all we can to stop these atrocities. The time to act is now.

16:19

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on securing this very important debate, which could not come soon enough.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on prevention of genocide and crimes against humanity, I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate. I know that I have the full support of hundreds, if not thousands, of residents in Putney and across the country in hearing about these issues today and seeking action. Really, I have had enough of speaking in debates and hearing the words “never again” about genocide. Talk is cheap and of little consequence to those who are suffering in Xinjiang right now. It is time to step up our actions, as we have heard from every speaker in the debate.

I was glad that the Government heeded the Opposition’s call to apply sanctions to Chinese officials who have played a role in the persecution. However, while I welcome that, I still cannot understand why the Government whipped their MPs to oppose the genocide amendment to the Trade Bill and are refusing to engage constructively in this debate today. I may hear otherwise from the Minister later. It is just not good enough. By rejecting the genocide amendment to the Trade Bill, the Government have protected the UK’s right to do trade deals with genocidal states, which I do not think any member of the British public wants to do.

Language is a powerful tool, and we need to start calling the situation what it is: a genocide. Genocide is the intent to destroy a national, ethnic or religious group. That is what is happening in Xinjiang. Hundreds of thousands of women have had birth control forcibly inserted. There is mass organ harvesting, slavery, gang rape and torture of a whole people. Two major independent analyses have investigated reports of alleged genocide in the Xinjiang region, and one of those was a formal legal opinion. Both reports conclude that there is sufficient evidence that the prohibited acts specified within the genocide convention and the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court have been breached with regard to the Uyghurs. How much more evidence do we have to keep on seeking before we declare the situation a genocide? One of the reports, from the Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy, conducted by over 30 independent global experts, found that the Chinese state is in breach of every act prohibited in article 2 of the genocide convention.

As has been mentioned several times, investigations by the United Nations and international courts are being blocked by China. The system simply is not working. We need another route to legitimately declare the systematic acts by the Chinese authorities as genocide. People’s tribunals such as the Uyghur tribunal led by Sir Geoffrey Nice, QC, are one of the few remaining routes to establish an independent, impartial and informed legal investigation into the suspected crimes taking place right now and to gather evidence for future prosecution so that there can be justice. For that reason, I am very pleased that the Uyghur tribunal has been established. I would like an assurance from the Minister today that the Government will commit to co-operating with, examining and acting on the findings of the tribunal.

Between now and then, though, there are still concrete actions we can take, and I will outline four. First, we must declare this a genocide. We could do that now through this motion, which I will be supporting, or if not, through making Government time for a further debate in which we can make that declaration. America, the Netherlands and Canada have done this.

Secondly, the Foreign Secretary has described what is happening in Xinjiang as

“barbarism we had hoped was lost to another era”.—[Official Report, 12 January 2021; Vol. 687, c. 160.]

Therefore, when will this House be presented with legislation strengthening section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 so that all companies have a responsibility to prove that their supply chains are free of forced labour, and also strengthening sanctions for non-compliance?

Thirdly, in the light of Beijing’s decision to sanction British Members of Parliament, including the hon. Member for Wealden, for raising legitimate concerns around genocide in Xinjiang, does the Foreign Secretary intend to defend our democracy by conducting an audit of every aspect of the UK’s relationship with China? Fourthly, what steps is he taking to make sure that the UK leads international efforts to ensure that the United Nations is given full and unfettered access to conduct investigations in the Xinjiang region?

Enough talk: it is time for the Government to stop tiptoeing around this issue and make a proper stand against the abuses taking place in Xinjiang. That is what the British public want. History will not look kindly on those who look the other way.

16:24

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am pleased to speak in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on setting the scene, and all her colleagues in the magnificent seven who are prepared to take a stand in this House, in the other House and outside Parliament. Despite the Chinese Communist party’s attempts to conceal the unconscionable human rights abuses carried out in Xinjiang, we hold clear and irrefutable evidence, which hon. Members have referred to, of the atrocities being perpetrated against the Uyghurs there.

I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. In that role, I am aware of a systematic campaign against freedom of religious belief in China: the religious activities of the country’s more than 70 million Christians, 10 million Falun Gong and 8 million Tibetan Buddhists are also severely restricted, with widespread state surveillance, harassment and detention of religious leaders. The Chinese Government have created a stifling and intimidating environment for Tibetan Buddhists who wish to practise their religion, with surveillance, travel restrictions and re-education programmes.

The independent, London-based China Tribunal has also found that it is beyond reasonable doubt that forced organ harvesting at a commercial level from these prisoners of conscience has been practised in China

“for a substantial period of time…by state organised or approved organisations or individuals.”

I believe it is time that the House called again, as it has in the past, for that to be ended as soon as possible.

I ask three things of the Government. First, while I welcome Her Majesty’s Government’s introduction of targeted sanctions, much more needs to be done to hold the Chinese Communist party to account. The Government’s integrated review states that FORB is a priority and they

“will not hesitate to stand up for our values”.

I know that the Government are committed to that and will do that, so as we prepare to host the G7 summit, the UK Government have the perfect opportunity to defend our values on a global stage. I therefore call on the Minister and the Government to lead their foreign counterparts at the G7 not only in demanding foreign access to Xinjiang with a collective voice, but in unequivocally condemning all human rights abuses in China. It is time to show the CCP that its substantial economic might can no longer buy silence from the west. Our values are not for sale.

I echo the request made by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) to lead calls for the 2022 winter Olympics to be moved from China. Allowing the genocide games to go ahead as planned is tantamount to the international community condoning the CCP’s actions. Moreover, if the Chinese Government plan to welcome thousands of people to China for the Olympics, perhaps they can first welcome UN human rights observers.

The CCP has already shown complete disregard for media freedoms. The BBC is banned from the country for the supposed crime of reporting on the abuses in Xinjiang province. While the UK Government are committed to protecting our journalists who are set to cover the games, can they ensure that our standards of press freedom are not compromised to spare China’s blushes? I call on Her Majesty’s Government to give public assurances to Britain’s world-class athletes that they will be protected if they choose to champion the cause of those oppressed by the very officials who are charged with their protection.

Finally, I stress that this would not be the first time that the Olympic games were played in the shadow of concentration camps. The 1935 request for a boycott of the Berlin games for the sake of minority and religious groups fell on deaf ears. We knew then, as we do now, the genocidal action that an authoritarian regime was taking against its religious minorities. More than 80 years later, when we see people with shaved heads, stripped of their belongings, lined up at gunpoint and loaded on to trains to dissident camps for no reason other than their peacefully held beliefs, those stark images should serve as a warning. Let us never again be forced to ask how the world could let that happen.

16:29

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) [V]]

Throughout this debate, we have all heard the harrowing stories of the mass human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang. We have heard about the mass detention camps; forced labour; systematic campaigns of rape, sexual abuse and torture; forced sterilisation; the separation of children from their parents; the destruction of mosques; and the erasure of Uyghur culture.

The Chinese Communist party has a shambolic record on human rights, with long-established repression of Christians, Tibetans and Falun Gong. Indeed, the lessons learned from the oppression of Tibetans has been applied in Xinjiang. The Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy has concluded that the Chinese Government have breached every article of the UN genocide convention in their treatment of Uyghurs and bear responsibility for committing genocide. The UK Government cannot continue to appease China, given these crimes against humanity. It is imperative that the UK Government go beyond words of condemnation and use every possible avenue to end the persecution and punish those who have instigated and participated in it.

Given the overwhelming evidence of genocide, international authorities must be given the unfettered access to establish whether that it is taking place. We welcome the talks that are under way between China and the UN to allow the UN Human Rights Commissioner to visit Xinjiang but, given China’s intransigence and crackdown on critical voices from the international community, can we really be anything other than sceptical of China’s commitment to transparency? China’s delegate to the UN Human Rights Council panel said:

“The door to Xinjiang is always open , and we welcome the High Commissioner to visit Xinjiang”,

but we know that the Communist party’s attitude is far from welcoming.

In recent months, numerous accredited international journalists have been expelled from China. BBC World News has been banned and, as we heard earlier, the BBC’s John Sudworth left Beijing at short notice last month after nine years reporting from China, amid concerns for his family’s safety after he reported on the persecution of Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities. Shamefully, the Chinese Government imposed sanctions on five elected Members of Parliament for simply doing their jobs and speaking out against the horrific human rights abuses that are currently taking place. Who knows whether all of us who have spoken today could be added to that list? I say, feel free—we stand together and will not be silenced.

Given such behaviour, what faith does the Minister have that China will allow full access to the Human Rights Commissioner to visit Xinjiang for a full and robust investigation into the genocide that appears to be taking place? Indeed, what access to Xinjiang has been given to officials in the UK embassies in China? Will the Government support visits by groups of MPs, such as the APPG on Uyghurs and the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, to see the reality for themselves?

Moreover, if China continues to be obstructive, what legislative action will the UK Government take? What can we learn from allies that seek to uphold the international rules-based order? To give one example, the USA enacted the Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act 2018, which denies Chinese Government officials access to the US if they are responsible for implementing restrictions on Americans who seek access to Tibet. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who has spoken today, has introduced a similar Bill, of which I am a sponsor; I urge the UK Government to give that Bill their full support and extend the legislation to cover other areas of China, including Xinjiang.

The time for appeasement is over. We cannot ignore the reality that the evidence of genocide is overwhelming. We have a moral duty to condemn it and accordingly to support the strongest possible action. The UK Government ought to declare that they regard the situation as genocide—genocide. Will the Minister do that today? The Government seem terrified of living up to their moral responsibilities. Despite lobbying from their own Back Benchers, last month they whipped their Members to defeat the anti-genocide amendment to the Trade Bill. It is inexplicable that the Government wanted to resist that amendment, although as we know from the Foreign Secretary’s leaked remarks, the Government appear to be more concerned with trade deals with the growth markets of the future than the protection of human rights.

The UK must follow other countries and introduce specific legislation to make clear its support for the Uyghurs as a persecuted community. For example, it is estimated that as much as 20% of the world’s cotton is gathered in Xinjiang, much of it by prisoners in camps; the Government should legislate to sanction any produce that originates from the province, to ensure that supply chains do not tacitly support slave labour. Furthermore, we need to offer asylum to those who escape persecution in China. If we can do it for those wishing to leave Hong Kong, we can do it for those fleeing genocide in Xinjiang. We need to protect Uyghur communities based here in the UK to ensure that they do not suffer intimidation from Chinese officials for bringing these abuses to light. Can the Minister commit to those measures?

Finally, although China has emerged as a global superpower, we cannot cower in fear as it systematically attempts to destroy the culture and lives of millions of people. We cannot be picked off nation by nation in turning a blind eye to genocide for the sake of trade deals. As we know from history, the true scale and horrific details of genocide rarely become fully known until much later. For all the statistics that we know of, for all the tormenting stories that we have heard of, and for all the secret images that have been smuggled out of China illustrating what is happening, the likelihood is that the situation is much, much worse. Therefore, we must be on the right side of history and take action now. This is not just a moral obligation, but a legal one, too. As a signatory to the UN genocide convention, the UK has an obligation

“to prevent and to punish the crime of genocide.”

We in the SNP wholly support this motion today. It is time for the UK Government to uphold that commitment to do everything in their power to prevent further atrocities from taking place and, in alliance with our international partners, ensure that the Chinese Government are held to account for their horrifying crimes.

16:35

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I first want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) for securing this vital debate and for her willingness to work across this House to ensure that, today, Parliament will speak with one voice. May I also pay tribute to the courage that she has shown in standing up to the bullying and intimidation of the Chinese Government? The fact that she and other hon. Members, who are also present in this House and elsewhere, have been sanctioned by Beijing for simply doing their jobs is an affront to our democracy and to this House. We on these Benches stand in solidarity with all those who have been targeted. Indeed, as the hon. Lady and others have so rightly put it, an attack on one of us in this House is an attack on us all, and authoritarian regimes the world over should take careful note.

I also want to thank contributors to the debate, including the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan), my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies), my hon. Friends the Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell), for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and for Putney (Fleur Anderson), each of whom made a powerful speech.

The Labour party stands in solidarity with the Uyghur population and the other Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang who have been suffering oppression at the hands of the Chinese Government. The accounts are harrowing and the evidence is clear: the mass surveillance and arbitrary detention of more than 1 million Uyghur and other minority groups; the torture and the brutality; the rape; the abuse; the forced sterilisation of women; the enforced separation of children from their parents; and the denial of the Uyghurs’ right to practise their religion or to speak their language. We have seen the first-hand footage of shaven-headed, bound Uyghur men being led into trains at gun point. We have seen the video bravely recorded by Merdan Ghappar from inside the forced labour camps. We have heard the first-hand accounts from Uyghur women of their treatment, and we have read the reports by Adrian Zenz and others, which are based on the Chinese Government’s own data and directives.

Ideally, a competent international court would examine this evidence, but there is no prospect that either the ICC or the International Court of Justice will be able to do so, as this would require the consent of China. Beijing will also continue to prevent the United Nations from conducting a proper investigation in Xinjiang. Through amendments to the Trade Bill, we, along with Members from across the House, sought to create a route to genocide determination through the UK’s courts, or through a panel of senior law lords, but those cross-party efforts were shamefully defeated by the Government. With the international route to legal determination of genocide blocked by China and the domestic route to legal determination blocked by the Government, it falls to Parliament to take action.

In February this year, an opinion by barristers at Essex Court Chambers led by Alison Macdonald QC provided a detailed legal assessment of all the available evidence. It concluded that there is a very credible case that the Chinese Government’s actions constitute genocide. In response, the chambers were sanctioned by China. In March this year, the Newlines Institute of Strategy and Policy in Washington also published a legal analysis that concluded that a genocide is taking place in Xinjiang. Importantly, given that the crime of genocide requires proof of intent, both opinions concluded that the atrocities that are being perpetrated against the Uyghur are not the random acts of rogue individuals, but the result of a conscious and carefully orchestrated campaign of oppression and persecution that is being conducted by the Chinese Government.

As a signatory to the 1948 genocide convention, the United Kingdom is legally bound to take all reasonable steps to both punish and prevent genocide. By passing this motion today, the House would be instructing the British Government to carry out those legal duties in relation to events in Xinjiang. So it is time for us in this House to take a stand and to support this motion. Today, we can speak with one voice. Today, we move forward with our eyes open and our shoulders broad. Today, we send a clear and unambiguous message that genocide can never be met with indifference or inaction, and that attempts to bully us into silence will only strengthen our resolve. Today, we shall offer the Uyghur people our unequivocal support.

The question, then, is what should be done. Unfortunately, the Government’s actions thus far, fall far short not just of the strength of feeling in this House, but also of their own rhetoric about the situation in Xinjiang. They have shamelessly prioritised their ability to enter into trade negotiations with China over a process to assess genocide. They were too slow in bringing forward the Magnitsky sanctions and they continue to skirt around the edges of reforming supply chain legislation and human rights due diligence. This dither and delay must now end, and the Government must take the following steps.

First, the Government should widen the Magnitsky sanctions, so they cover a broader range of senior Chinese Communist party officials and entities responsible for serious human rights violations in Xinjiang, including Chen Quanguo, already sanctioned by our allies in the United States. Secondly, they must support the work of the Uyghur people’s tribunal, which is hearing evidence from those affected. Thirdly, they must engage diplomatically to build wider support for the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to gain access to Xinjiang, and in particular work to engage countries, many of which are friends and partners of the UK, which to date have regrettably been sheltering China from international scrutiny.

Fourthly, the Government must continue to explore legal routes to justice through international courts and mechanisms. The Foreign Secretary should seek to introduce a General Assembly resolution requesting an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the question of genocide. We should also explore legal avenues via other international treaties and conventions, such as the convention against torture to which China is a signatory. We must do what we can to seek justice and accountability.

Fifthly, there must be consequences for the bilateral economic relationship. Will the Minister make that commitment today by confirming the continued suspension of the joint economic trade commission and the economic and financial dialogue? Sixthly, we all recognise that British businesses should not be supporting slave labour in Xinjiang. When will this House be presented with legislation strengthening the Modern Slavery Act 2015, so that companies have a responsibility to demonstrate that their supply chains are free of forced labour and that there would be meaningful sanctions for non-compliance?

Successive Conservative Governments since 2010 have been profoundly naive and complacent in their dealings with China. The so-called golden era policy was the very definition of a sell-out, with Conservative leaders turning a blind eye to human rights abuses and sacrificing our national security on the altar of narrow commercial interests. A more coherent and clear strategy is urgently required, yet we see, unfortunately, division on the Government Benches, with a caucus of Conservative Members taking a principled stance, while the Foreign Secretary says one thing in public and something entirely different in private, and No. 10 appears to be desperate to do a trade deal with China at literally any price.



We need to lead by example when it comes to international law, not undermine our country’s authority and credibility by breaking international law ourselves. And we need to be building bridges with our partners and allies in Europe and elsewhere, who face the same challenges in their relationship with China, rather than constantly losing friends and alienating people. Because the Chinese Communist party respects strength, consistency and unity, and it is contemptuous of weakness and division.

Democracy around the world is in retreat. Authoritarian regimes are in the ascendancy and the rules-based international order is under threat. So it is all the more important that we in this House stand united today. I therefore call on the Minister to support the motion, to implement the actions that I have set out, and to urge the Government to do all they can to prevent, and to punish, those who are committing genocide against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang.

16:45

[The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)]

I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) for securing this debate, and I pay tribute to her, and to all hon. and right hon. colleagues who were the recipients of those ill thought-out and ludicrous sanctions announced by China recently, for their continued work on this important issue.

I of course acknowledge the strength of feeling across the House on this critically important issue. We have heard some powerful speeches from all parts of the House today. Parliaments and individual parliamentarians rightly play a pivotal role in drawing global attention to human rights violations, wherever they occur. I am very grateful for all the contributions and I will try to answer the points raised within the context of my speech. I am conscious that I need to leave my hon. Friend some time to wind up the debate.

As we have heard from across the Floor, the situation faced by Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang is truly harrowing. We have repeatedly emphasised our grave concern at the serious and widespread human rights violations occurring in the region. There are credible reports of the extrajudicial detention of over 1 million Uyghur people and other minorities in political re-education camps since 2017, extensive and invasive surveillance targeting minorities, forced separation of children from their parents, forced sterilisation of women, systematic restriction on Uyghur culture, education and the practice of Islam, and the widespread use of forced labour.

The evidence of the scale and severity of the violations in Xinjiang is extensive. That includes, as the whole House knows, satellite imagery, the testimony of survivors, credible open-source reporting by journalists and academic researchers, and visits by British diplomats to the region that have corroborated reports about the targeting of specific ethnic groups. United Nations special rapporteurs and other international experts have also expressed their very serious concerns.

Meanwhile, leaked and publicly available documents from the Chinese Government themselves verify many of the reports that we have seen. Those documents show guidance on how to run internment camps, and lists showing how and why people have been detained. They contain extensive references to coercive social measures and show statistical data on birth control and on security spending and recruitment in Xinjiang.

In the face of that evidence, the United Kingdom has acted decisively. In March, the Government took the significant step of sanctioning four senior individuals responsible for the violations that have taken place, and which persist, against the Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang. We also designated the organisation responsible for enforcing the repressive security policies across many areas of Xinjiang.

The sanctions involve travel bans and asset freezes against the individuals and an asset freeze against the entity that we are designating. These individuals are barred from entering the UK and any assets that they hold in the UK are frozen. By acting alongside our partners, the United States, Canada and the European Union, on an agreed set of designations, we have sent a clear and powerful message to the Chinese Government that the international community will not turn a blind eye to serious and systematic violations of basic human rights. These countries amount to a third of global GDP.

On 12 January, we announced robust domestic measures to help to ensure that UK businesses and the public sector avoid complicity in human rights violations in Xinjiang through their supply chains, including a review of export controls as they apply to Xinjiang, the introduction of financial penalties for organisations that fail to comply with their transparency obligations under the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and robust and detailed guidance for UK businesses to target those who profit from forced labour and those who would support it financially, whether deliberately or otherwise.

We have also acted internationally to hold China to account for its policies in Xinjiang. In February, in the first personal address to the UN Human Rights Council by a UK Foreign Secretary in more than a decade, my right hon. Friend underlined his call for China to allow the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, or another independent expert,

“urgent and unfettered access to Xinjiang.”

That point was made powerfully by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and was reinforced by the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) and the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock).

Working with our partners, we have built an international caucus of countries calling China out for its gross human rights violations and increased the diplomatic pressure for Beijing to change course. On 6 October 2020, alongside Germany, we brought together 39 countries to express grave concern at the situation in Xinjiang in a joint statement at the UN General Assembly Third Committee. That was an increase on the 23 countries that supported the UK-led joint statement a year earlier.

We continue to raise the human rights violations in Xinjiang directly with the Chinese authorities. I had direct conversations recently when I summoned the chargé to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has raised his serious concerns on a number of occasions with his counterpart, Foreign Minister and State Councillor Wang Yi.

The motion before the House is that the situation in Xinjiang amounts to genocide and crimes against humanity. The UK of course treats all allegations of genocide and crimes against humanity with the gravity they demand. As a nation, we have a strong history of protecting global human rights, but as the House is no doubt aware, the UK’s long-standing position, like many countries around the world, is that determining whether a situation amounts to genocide or crimes against humanity is a matter for competent national and international courts, after consideration of all the available evidence.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Nigel Adams]

I will on that point, although I am conscious that I need to leave a few minutes at the end.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I will be very brief. Will my hon. Friend now commit the Foreign Office and the Government, given that they do not want to say genocide, to co-operating with and giving full evidence to the Uyghur tribunal led by Sir Geoffrey Nice? Can he now give that commitment that they will co-operate and give evidence? It will define genocide, and then the Government could sign up to it.

[Nigel Adams]

I have made our position clear. Incidentally, I have met Sir Geoffrey Nice. I met him yesterday, along with Lord Anderson of Ipswich. We had a very constructive dialogue, and we will continue to have dialogue with Sir Geoffrey. Our policy is that a competent court should determine genocide. Sir Geoffrey is an eminent lawyer and he has done fantastic work in this area, but his tribunal is of course not a criminal court. That is our policy.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Will you give evidence?

[Nigel Adams]

What I will say to my right hon. Friend is that competent courts include international courts such as the ICC and the International Court of Justice, and national criminal courts that meet international standards of due process.

Genocide and crimes against humanity are among the most egregious of all international crimes. We believe —my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) concurred with this in his powerful speech—that the question of whether they have been committed is for a competent court of law to decide. Genocide and crimes against humanity are subject to a restrictive legal framework under international law. In particular, a finding of genocide requires proof that relevant acts were carried out with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. Proving such intent to the required legal standard can be incredibly difficult to achieve in practice.

For these reasons, we do not believe it is right for the Government to make a determination in this, or in any other case where genocide or crimes against humanity are alleged. Parliaments in Canada and the Netherlands have passed motions saying it is a genocide, but the Dutch Prime Minister’s party voted against the motions and Prime Minister Trudeau’s Government abstained.

The United Kingdom is committed to seeking an end to serious violations of international human rights law wherever they occur, preventing the escalation of any such violations and alleviating the suffering of those who are affected. Our approach has not prevented us from taking robust action to address serious human rights violations, as we have done and will continue to do in the case of Xinjiang. We are also committed to ensuring that, where allegations are made, they are investigated thoroughly, including, where appropriate, independent international investigation by relevant bodies and experts. The Foreign Secretary has been clear that we wish to see the UN commissioner for human rights or another independent observer have full and unrestricted access to Xinjiang to investigate the situation on the ground. Today, I again call on China to grant that without further delay.

A number of colleagues mentioned the issue of the winter Olympics. The Prime Minister has made it clear that we are not normally in favour of sporting boycotts, and of course the participation of the national team at the Olympics is a matter for the British Olympic Association, which is required to operate independently of the Government under International Olympic Committee regulations. The hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) mentioned the recent announcement of the official development assistance cuts in China. We have cut the budget to China by 95%, but every single penny of the remaining budget for China will be spent solely on open societies work and human rights work.

The Government understand the strength of feeling on this issue and share the grave concerns expressed by Members. I commend the efforts of hon. and right hon. Members to draw attention to the deeply troubling situation in Xinjiang. We have taken robust action. We have introduced sanctions, we are tackling Uyghur forced labour in UK supply chains, and we are ramping up pressure on Beijing through UN human rights bodies. We will continue to work with international partners to hold China to account for its gross violations of human rights against Uyghurs and other minorities in the region.

16:58

[Ms Ghani]

I thank hon. and right hon. Members across the House for speaking with one voice and the appropriate tone in considering the crime of all crimes, genocide. There is absolute recognition that all five markers of genocide have been met. The House, I hope, will speak with one voice in a few moments and unanimously support my motion. Unfortunately, that puts the Government in a very difficult position because at some point they will have to undertake their UN obligations.

China sanctioned us for opposing its crimes against the Uyghur. Parliament must now prove that it will not be cowed and back my motion unanimously. We will continue to stand up for the Uyghur people.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House believes that Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region are suffering crimes against humanity and genocide; and calls on the Government to act to fulfil its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide and all relevant instruments of international law to bring it to an end.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Could those Members now leaving do so in a covid-friendly way? We are going to move to the next business. My suggestion is that, while Mr Fletcher is speaking, we sanitise the Government Dispatch Box only.

British Wrestling

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(David Duguid.)

17:00

[Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)]

I thank Mr Speaker for granting this Adjournment debate. It is an honour to lead a debate on the future of British wrestling. Much to the disappointment of several of the Doorkeepers and the Whip on duty, but to the relief of the Deputy Serjeant Arms, who is sanitising at the moment, there will be no practical demonstrations during the debate. It follows a report released by the all-party parliamentary group on wrestling less than a month ago. I must say that I am tremendously sad to be doing the debate without my tag-team partner, my friend the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who is unfortunately detained with her other duties. I hope that I can do her justice in my remarks.

I think that, with some exceptions, I am the first MP to be addressing professional wrestling in the House—at least in a significant way—for some eight decades. That is slightly surprising, given that wrestling is perhaps the only industry that can rival politics for bravado, faux indignation and partisan crowds. However, wrestling may have the edge on physiques and fake tans, where only an episode of “TOWIE” may rival it.

This is an opportunity for me to marry my duty as a Member of Parliament and my joy as a wrestling fan. My love of professional wrestling started when, as a very young man, I got a DVD, and it had the Undertaker on it. He captured my imagination. Then I got a VHS of the 1992 Royal Rumble, with the amazing commentary of Bobby “The Brain” Heenan and Ric Flair’s historic victory. In that same year, some 80,000 people went to Wembley stadium for that year’s SummerSlam in which the British Bulldog won the Intercontinental championship. Around that time, my dad and my step-mum took me to a wrestling show at Adwick leisure centre in Doncaster, which was an amazing occasion for me, I was hooked.

A few years ago, I spent the day after my birthday—it was a birthday present—at Wembley arena for a progress show among 5,000 wrestling fans, seeing some of the very best wrestlers in the world in our capital. Many of them were British. Nowadays, to switch off from the day job, I often go home and watch a New Japan show or an All Elite Wrestling show. Wrestling is booming. The work of the all-party parliamentary group on wrestling has unleashed several closet wrestling fans. Among MPs, many of the staff of the House and indeed many journalists we find many closeted wrestling fans.

As Jim Smallman wrote in his book about British wrestling, modern wrestling has its origins in the carnival. In the 1800s, travelling carnivals went around attracting the public, often using wrestling. Indeed, to give some political crossover, I am told that Abraham Lincoln was renowned for his wrestling prowess. Although it was originally a sport, it became predetermined in its outcome largely because—some Members could learn from this—actual fighting is quite dull. The crowds preferred a prolonged and entertaining contest.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I always knew that Jim Shannon harboured a secret passion for wrestling. We are going to hear about it now.

[Jim Shannon]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, who I spoke to beforehand. My three boys were all keen on wrestling and used to try to imitate the wrestling shows that he referred to. I am afraid that their dad was not quite as keen. Does the hon. Gentleman share my disappointment that World Wrestling Entertainment, the one major wrestling body in the UK, did not engage in the tremendous piece of work carried out by the APPG and him in particular? I commend that work. Does he agree that it is not too late for engagement and that the aim of the report to provide a safe, enjoyable and successful sport is more than worthy of their time, as it was for my young boys when they were small?

[Mark Fletcher]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. This is my second Adjournment debate and I am delighted that on both occasions I have been intervened on by him. I absolutely share his sentiments, because the WWE is the most well-known name in global wrestling. It has a UK base, which I was just about to talk about, a UK performance centre and a UK brand. The WWE shares many of the requirements we have identified in our report and it is an important stakeholder in the future of the industry. There are some issues to address relating to WWE working practices, but that is part of the wider engagement we need to have as an industry.

Let me return to where I was. I was about to say, and I am sure this will pique your interest, Mr Speaker, that for many people in this country wrestling is synonymous with “World of Sport” and the likes of Big Daddy and Giant Haystacks on a Saturday afternoon—I have been amazed at how many people have made reference to that. But those fans may have missed some of the developments, to which I have just alluded, in recent years, including a thriving British independent wrestling scene that has developed some of the best talents in the world. Indeed, in the month the all-party group released its report, a British wrestler became the New Japan IWGP champion, a British wrestler was in the opening match at Wrestlemania for the WWE title, a show headlined by two brilliant female wrestlers, which is an incredibly important part of the report and what we examined, and the British Bulldog was honoured, following his death, by being inducted into the WWE hall of fame.

Wrestling is a wonderful bubble. We can escape the real world and see the contest of people in front of us as purely good or bad, a luxury we are rarely afforded in real life. It is escapism, and a brilliant art form. Unfortunately, that bubble that the industry operates in has been burst somewhat, and that is the focus of my following remarks. Last year, two separate forces happened to British wrestling that will have a profound and long-lasting impact. The first was, of course, covid-19 and the inability to put on shows. The second was the SpeakingOut movement, whereby many in the industry spoke of allegations of abuses of power, including sexual abuse. We started the all-party group inquiry in September 2020, and I do not think any of us involved realised what an undertaking it would be. We struggled to pull together simple facts and statistics. We discovered a largely unregulated industry operating outside the rules that most businesses operate in. In our numerous evidence sessions and written evidence, we found an industry in which leadership, unity and collaboration were sorely lacking. We put to many of these individuals and organisations incredibly difficult allegations, and in turn we heard of some extremely harrowing experiences. But we also heard of the brilliant things that British wrestling does, from fundraising for charities to turning people’s lives around. I am thinking, in particular, of Aspire Wrestling in Derby, which is working with young kids and giving them transformational skills. As well as entertaining hundreds of thousands of people, wrestling does an awful lot of good.

The report that we produced was a labour of love, an unprecedented pulling together of the background of the industry, alongside the modern challenges that it faces. I wish to place on record, on behalf of the hon. Member for Pontypridd and myself, our thanks to the hon. Members for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), for Newport West (Ruth Jones) and for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), and my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow). In addition, I wish to mention the brilliant Danny Stone, the wonderful Robert Rams and Freddie Cook, who is a staffer in the office of the hon. Member for Pontypridd and who somehow managed to keep us all on track. I thank all those who submitted evidence and came to the oral evidence sessions.

We found, on the whole, two major issues. One is a culture within British wrestling that has become toxic and requires tremendous improvement, and the second is a total lack of governance. In my remaining time, I would like to cover some of our key conclusions and ask the Minister—who has been incredibly helpful in his engagement over the last few months, along with his officials—to give the Government’s response on some of these issues.

Wrestling falls between two different worlds. Is it an art, or is it a sport? We think we have answered that question, and we have separated it out in the report. Our idea is that those who are training to be wrestlers and are in wrestling schools are undertaking a sporting exercise—those foundations are largely physical and require teaching, so that is the sporting aspect. When someone attends a wrestling show, they are watching a performance. We think that that is a helpful distinction, because it gives a clear pathway for the different aspects of the industry to move forward. Has the Minister considered our recommendation that schools be considered sporting and shows be considered theatrical? Does he agree that this is the first step to unlocking the industry’s potential? Will he write, as we recommended, to Sport England and Arts Council England and work with devolved counterparts to do the same, so that we can get things moving?

With regard to wrestling schools, there is a particularly serious issue, because we are often talking about children and minors. Those who go to wrestling schools are often not of an age at which they are fully aware of their surroundings, and they are not in adulthood yet. As I outlined, we have recommended that we separate them out from promotions. There are issues around whether those who teach wrestling are in positions of trust—an issue that we have discussed when considering legislation in the House. They are certainly in positions of power, but we need to know whether they are in positions of trust legally, for the purposes of child sexual offences.

With regard to health and safety, we found an industry that is sorely lacking. We found everything from unfit rings in which people operate to basic first aid requirements lacking. Some of our wrestlers are being let down, and in turn, our fans are being let down. I would like to thank Dr David Bevan for his expert input into the report and praise www.wrestlingsafely.co.uk, which outlines an excellent way forward. Will the Minister raise with ministerial colleagues the recommendation that rings produced in the UK and used here be required to have a designated standard adopted by the British Standards Institution?

The report also references the online safety Bill. Can the Minister outline the Government’s plans for pre-legislative scrutiny? In the absence of any standard, will he encourage promoters to read and follow the recommendations on health and safety, specifically with regard to concussion protocols, in the APPG’s report? Unfortunately, wrestling is a long way behind other sports in which people suffer from concussions—particularly rugby—and there is a serious need to make progress, so that some wrestlers are not left in a terrible state in later life. Will the Minister raise with Home Office colleagues the recommendation on strengthened licensing requirements for the temporary event notice scheme and work with the devolved Administrations on equal standards across the regions?

We spoke to many wrestling promoters during our inquiry. Unfortunately we did not speak to all of them, but it was not for lack of trying. We encourage any wrestling promoters who feel that they did not get to have their say to come forward and have a discussion, because they will be central to the future of the wrestling industry. There is a clear requirement to make sure that they are brought on board and understand the rationale behind what we set out in the report.

Specific problems arise from the current situation in regard to Brexit and the ability of talents to come into this country for wrestling shows, so will the Minister raise with colleagues at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Department for International Trade the points in the report about ensuring a point of contact for UK talent overseas? Will he raise the point about visiting talent with the Home Office?

I alluded to the SpeakingOut movement earlier, and I thank everybody who gave testimony in regard to that. It was the inspiration for the passion of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) to get involved in the APPG. Undoubtedly it was a low mark in British wrestling’s history. We have tried to give a voice to those who may have felt that they have not had one in this House before. We hope that we did justice to those victims in a meaningful way. The toxic culture around wrestling will have to end if it is to rise again. In our report, we highlighted a pledge that we hope promotions will abide by. Does the Minister have any comments on that pledge?

Finally, in regard to governance, one of the strange things about writing this report was the discovery that we knew so little about British wrestling’s history or the modern context. The Minister will almost certainly say that one of the difficulties he has in engaging with British wrestling is that there is no governing body. There is nobody to put forward the industry’s arguments at a Government level. Indeed, there is nobody to disseminate advice back down through the pyramid. There was a clear consensus that a governing body is needed to help bring about some of the things and to help professionalise the industry and put it on a sustainable footing.

The APPG is not well placed to bring in a governing body. We can be part of that conversation, but all that we can do is make recommendations. I very much hope that the industry saw the arguments that we set out in our report, because there are so many ways in which wrestling organisations are treated poorly because they are not properly represented, whether that is to do with venue hiring rules, Arts Council grants, obtaining visas or getting insurance.

The economies of scale from co-operation through a governing body would pay back tenfold what it would cost to these groups and promotions, but it would also give legitimacy to the industry and help raise the standards that performers and fans need to see. Does the Minister agree with the argument that industries with governing bodies have been better placed to weather the covid storm that we have seen over the past few months? Does he have any additional comments about our recommendations on a governing body?

In conclusion, in our report, we said that we wanted to begin a conversation. That conversation has to take in many stakeholders, from fans and those in the industry through to those in government, but it has to be industry-led. As two Back Benchers, the hon. Member for Pontypridd and I are not in a position to take that forward, but we hope that this report has started the conversation, and this Adjournment debate is part of that. I fear that British wrestling will bury its head in the sand again. Unfortunately, wrestling usually makes the front page on two occasions: one is when we have a nostalgic moment when somebody who used to be famous has passed away, and the second is when there is a tragedy, and I think of something like Chris Benoit and the actions he took—and that is not something I want to happen. I am desperate to try to help British wrestling overcome those barriers and become better.

It does not have to be this way. It is an industry with hundreds of thousands of fans. It has some of the most creative minds around. It can be better, but British wrestling needs to respect itself if others are to respect it, too. The industry needs to rise together, to work together and to be better.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am thrilled that the hon. Member mentioned Robert Rams. As the hon. Gentleman may or may not know, Robert was my chief of staff for several years. If I let him, he would turn the conversation to wrestling, and there were no limits to what he would not do to go and see a wrestling match. I know he will be thrilled by that reference today.

17:19

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) on securing this debate and for raising both the issues and opportunities of wrestling. He and his colleague, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), the co-chairs of the all-party group on wrestling, have done a fantastic job of raising the profile of wrestling in this place and outside. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his comments as well. Perhaps, Mr Deputy Speaker, with your leave, we could make an exception and allow a physical demonstration in the Chamber today between the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover. I think that could be quite an entertaining end to the day, but perhaps we have to wait for another day for that. However, now that we know your personal interest, Mr Deputy Speaker, maybe we can find some way to do so.

Professional wrestling brings incredible joy, as my hon. Friend said, to people right across the country. It has a proud and rich history in this country. If we ask anybody who grew up in the UK between the 1960s and 1980s, as a few of us did, what they think of when somebody mentions wrestling, they will probably talk about Big Daddy and Giant Haystacks and watching “World of Sport” on ITV—those fantastic Saturday afternoons watching wrestling. “World of Sport” finished in the 1980s and the WWF, now WWE, took over. We saw an Americanisation of wrestling for quite a long period, but despite the American dominance, British wrestlers did manage to infiltrate the very top echelons of wrestling, including Davey Boy Smith, better known as The British Bulldog. He was there, as my hon. Friend mentioned, at Wembley Stadium in 1992 when 80,000 people attended the SummerSlam.

In the last few years, British wrestling has seen a resurgence, with high-calibre talent and impressive promotions. This has allowed the UK scene to rival the larger promotions across the world. Not only has there been an increase in the number of shows booked, but over the last few years we have seen a steady rise in attendances, with many shows now selling to record numbers. We have seen British promotions such as PROGRESS, Insane Championship Wrestling and Revolution Pro Wrestling hosting major shows attracting international audiences and adding to our international tourism offer. Recently, there has also been the creation of the UK’s own specific WWE brand in NXT UK.

Across the country, training facilities have also become more important for the British pro wrestling scene. They are being run by some of the biggest names in the industry. This includes the creation of the first WWE performance centre outside the United States, in London, in 2019. We have seen some of this British-trained talent cross the Atlantic and become successful in major established promotions, such as WWE and All Elite Wrestling. Drew McIntyre became the first ever British WWE world champion in 2020, and Scottish-born Kay Lee Ray is currently the NXT UK women’s champion.

With the current pandemic impacting on the sport and entertainment industries so severely over the last year, I really do appreciate the efforts of the APPG on wrestling to ensure that the last few years of hard work raising the profile of UK pro wrestling does not go to waste. I particularly applaud my hon. Friend because, as he said, without a governing body, the sector faces some challenges. I warmly welcome the work of the APPG and its recent inquiry into the future of professional wrestling in Britain, which we heard about this afternoon. The inquiry’s report makes many recommendations across a broad range of issues relating to the sector. I am not in a position to answer every single one of his questions at the moment, but I will carefully consider the report and happily engage with him and the APPG as we consider it more thoroughly.

My hon. Friend covered a very wide range of areas, including health and safety standards, safeguarding, the promotion of wrestling and addressing the gender pay gap, which are all important issues. A lot of these areas are in the gift of the wrestling industry itself to address, and I urge those in the sector, as he did, to consider the APPG’s report very carefully and what actions the sector can take, including coming together more clearly.

I agree with the need for wrestling to place safety and wellbeing at the forefront of its priorities. There is no need for the industry to start with a blank sheet of paper here; as the report sets out, there is a wealth of information from other sectors that can be used as a starting point. That includes safeguarding standards in sport and in the arts. In sport, the Child Protection in Sport Unit provides a clear framework of standards that organisations working with children and young people should meet, along with supporting resources. In the arts and entertainment sector the NSPCC has produced guidance, including advice on creating clear safeguarding and child protection policies and procedures. The Department for Education has provided advice for local authorities and individuals working with children in all types of professional or amateur performances, paid sport and paid modelling. All those resources are available for wrestling right now, and I urge those in the industry to make use of them.

The report also addresses how wrestling should be categorised. We have spoken about that on several occasions; it is a challenge. The report recommends that training should be considered a sport and the performance element an entertainment. Personally I can see the logic in that distinction, but that is a matter for Sport England. I understand that there is engagement with Sport England, and I suggest that that continues.

[Mark Fletcher]

My hon. Friend is doing a brilliant job. I asked whether he would write to Sport England in support of our recommendation; would he be willing to do so?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank my hon. Friend. I will definitely write to Sport England and ask it to seriously consider it. He will understand that, because the matter is at the discretion of Sport England, if I were to get involved and strongly suggest that it should decide one way or the other it might be considered inappropriate, but what I will do is consider the application very seriously and get back to him. Look, personally I understand it, but this is not for me to decide, and I need to respect the appropriate decision-making bodies.

As the report made out, this is a complex area; it is not clear, but it is a perfectly valid point to raise. The report highlighted the fact that support from the two most relevant Government arm’s length bodies, Sport England and Arts Council England, has been provided to many projects in the past, where the projects have met the relevant funding criteria. Where that is clearly sport or clearly entertainment, that has been straightforward. Where that is not the case, there are obviously challenges, but the door is open for discussions about what support can be provided to wrestling, and I would urge the industry, as well as the APPG—but it is the industry that would benefit here—to be very clear about the exact nature of the support they are looking for and therefore pursue that help. It is for wrestling itself to make the case for support and how it fits with those organisations’ strategic aims, just as it is for any other organisation looking for publicly funded support. We all want to see wrestling prosper, but the industry needs to be clear about what it wants to achieve.

The report and this afternoon’s debate have highlighted the effect that the current pandemic has had on the industry. I appreciate that the sector has been hit particularly hard by the pandemic. We have been working with sectors throughout the economy to make it possible for entertainment such as pro wrestling to restart in a safe manner, and rightly our focus remains on public safety. With falling infection rates and the vaccination of more than 33 million people, we have cause for optimism. As my hon. Friend knows, in February the Prime Minister set out a road map out of the current lockdown for England. We also announced the events research programme, an integral part of the road map, which will help to explore how larger events across the cultural and entertainment sectors can reopen safely. Currently, participants have been able to resume training.

Again, I would like to thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. As I have promised, we will happily continue with the conversations, and I will endeavour to give him answers to the many other questions he raised today. I would like to reiterate my thanks to the APPG for wrestling for its work on looking at the future of wrestling in this country. We will carefully consider the report and what factors are relevant to the Government and, potentially, to Departments other than the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and I urge the wrestling community itself to look at the recommendations that it should take forward. We all want to see a successful wrestling industry, both for participants and for the many fans right across the country. I hope that the report will help it to grow and continue to prosper.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

What a wonderful way to finish the parliamentary week, debating British wrestling. Well done! I would also like to thank all the technicians and the backroom people in broadcasting who have allowed those Members participating remotely to be able to do so. We are incredibly grateful for everything that you have done.

Question put and agreed to.

17:29

House adjourned.

Draft Single Use Carrier Bags Charges (England) (Amendment) Order 2021

Thursday 22nd April 2021 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Sir Charles Walker

Caulfield, Maria (Lewes) (Con)

Davies, Geraint (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)

Docherty, Leo (Minister for Defence People and Veterans)

Dowd, Peter (Bootle) (Lab)

Duguid, David (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland)

Fovargue, Yvonne (Makerfield) (Lab)

† Harris, Rebecca (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

Johnson, Kim (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)

Jones, Fay (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)

† Jones, Ruth (Newport West) (Lab)

Mann, Scott (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

Mishra, Navendu (Stockport) (Lab)

† Morden, Jessica (Newport East) (Lab)

† Morris, James (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

† Pow, Rebecca (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

Pursglove, Tom (Corby) (Con)

Throup, Maggie (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

Yohanna Sallberg, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee

Thursday 22 April 2021

[Sir Charles Walker in the Chair]

Draft Single Use Carrier Bags Charges (England) (Amendment) Order 2021

11:30

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Single Use Carrier Bags Charges (England) (Amendment) Order 2021.

As ever, it is a delight to see you in the Chair, Sir Charles.

The Government are committed to eliminating plastic waste and its terrible effect on the environment. Consumption of single-use plastic items and their inappropriate disposal continue to raise significant environmental issues. Unlike other materials such as paper or wood, plastic can persist in the environment for hundreds of years. If released into the environment, items such as single-use plastic bags can damage habitats and endanger wildlife.

Furthermore, plastic that escapes into the environment will eventually break down into microplastics, which permeate our food chain and end up in our soil and seas. The full impacts of microplastics are still being uncovered. Even when single-use plastics are disposed of properly, they will typically end up in landfill or be incinerated, releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Action is needed to curtail the use of single-use plastics and their release into the environment. The proposed measures in the resources and waste chapter of our Environment Bill will help us to transition towards a more circular economy and change the way in which we use and consume resources by keeping them in the system for longer to extract maximum value from them.

There is much we can already do to address the issue of single-use plastics, including our highly successful carrier bag charge. This draft statutory instrument will amend the Single Use Carrier Bags Charges (England) Order 2015 by extending the requirement to charge for single-use carrier bags supplied to customers to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises; removing airport sellers’ exemption from charging; and increasing the minimum mandatory charge for single-use carrier bags from 5p to 10p.

Since the charge was first introduced in 2015, we have prevented billions of plastic bags from being sold and ending up in the ocean and the environment. We have already seen a reduction of 95% in the use of single-use carrier bags in the main supermarkets, and more than £150 million has been donated to good causes. Interestingly, as a result of the carrier bag charge, the average person in England now buys just four bags a year from the main supermarkets, compared with 140 in 2014. I think we can all agree that that is tremendous progress.

The aim of extending the charge to all retailers is to cut bag usage significantly for small shops, too, with customers incentivised to use long-life bags made from more suitable and environmentally friendly materials. As an aside, I encourage those present to get a Somerset willow basket. They do not even need a bag for life; they could have something made from plants grown on the Somerset levels. Growing those plants helps tackle climate change and greenhouse gases, and we get sustainable baskets. I have had one for 35 years.

Micro, small and medium-sized enterprises circulated about 3.2 billion single-use carrier bags in 2018, accounting for more than 80% of the single-use carrier bags in circulation in England. This intervention is a strong marker of the Government’s intention to clamp down on single-use plastic pollution and to protect our environment for future generations. When taken in conjunction with our wider policy approach to transition to a more circular economy, this will be another landmark moment following the straws, cotton buds and stirrers ban.

I turn to exemptions. To reduce the burden on business, reporting requirements on the number of single-use carrier bags sold annually will not be extended to businesses with fewer than 250 employees. Large businesses do not have to report the number of bags for life that they sell. However, we know there are concerns about the increasing use of such bags, so we will explore extending the reporting requirements to them in order to improve our understanding of the issue—I think the shadow Minister might raise that point. In fairness, a number of other people have done so, and I hope that gives some assurance that we are aware of it.

We are determined to get the legislation right, and it is vital that businesses and the public are informed about what they can and cannot do. Guidance will be published shortly after the debate to explain the legislation in detail to both businesses and the public. Informal guidance has already been shared with businesses to help them to prepare for the upcoming legislative changes. To ensure compliance, we have given trading standards authorities the powers that they require for this type of restriction—for example, to enter and examine premises that they suspect are in breach of the law. Anyone caught not charging for single-use plastic bags in line with the legislation could face civil sanctions, such as stop notices or a variable financial penalty. We hope that these enforcement measures will not be necessary, but the regulations need to have teeth in order to show that the Government take the issue of plastic pollution seriously.

The draft order sends a signal to industry and the general public that we need to think carefully about the bags we use and the materials from which they are made. The order will help people to make more sustainable choices, and it is an important step towards a more circular economy. I commend it to the Committee.

00:00

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is good to be back in the House today, and I thank all the members of the House authorities who are working hard to keep us safe as we carry out our duties in this place. May I take this opportunity to wish Her Majesty a happy 95th birthday for yesterday, on behalf of my shadow ministerial colleagues? This is a good week for birthdays, because it is mine tomorrow. Before you ask, Sir Charles, I am not 95.

On a sadder note, I extend my deepest condolences to my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) on the death of her husband, Councillor Ray Glindon. My hon. Friend is the shadow Whip for environment, food and rural affairs, and we send her family our love and solidarity at this very sad time.

The draft Single Use Carrier Bags Charges (England) (Amendment) Order 2021 is an important piece of legislation, and I am pleased that we have the opportunity to discuss it. As set out in schedule 2 of the Single Use Carrier Bags Charges (England) Order 2015, a single-use carrier bag

“means an unused bag made of lightweight plastic material with handles, other than an excluded bag.”

The order that we are debating will increase the minimum amount that sellers must charge for a single-use carrier bag from 5p to 10p. In other words, this is an important step in the fight against waste and the battle to preserve our planet and protect our environment.

The order will extend the obligation to charge to all retailers and will remove from airport retailers the exemption from charging for single-use carrier bags. That will reduce the usage of such bags, and the litter associated with them, while allowing for their continued use where necessary. Her Majesty’s Opposition have no issue with the substance behind the order; frankly, we only wish that it could have been brought to the House sooner.

As highlighted in the very helpful briefing produced by the Green Alliance, the order sadly continues with the short-sighted approach of addressing only single-use plastic carrier bags. This means that retailers remain free to give out, without charge, bags made from other materials, such as paper. That is an oversight that requires addressing, because paper bags are often just as unnecessary as their plastic counterparts and can have higher carbon impacts, depending on material sources and product specification. A 2011 study for the Northern Ireland Assembly found that paper bags generally require four times as much energy to manufacture as plastic bags. I join others in reminding the Minister that applying charges only to plastic items—an approach that the Government are continuing in the Environment Bill—is a mistake and risks merely shifting the environmental burden, as alternative materials may be used with equal environmental recklessness.

It will be no surprise to the Minister that I am very proud of the Welsh Labour Government and all that they have done to tackle waste, littering and fly-tipping over the years. Indeed, the Welsh Government introduced a fully comprehensive charge on single-use bags back in 2010. Since Wales has had its own Government from 1999, we have become a global leader in recycling. We are now first in the UK, second in Europe and third in the world for household waste recycling. Put simply, recycling is what we do in Wales. This achievement has taken a clear long-term vision, strong partnership working, significant investment and clear milestones along the way. That is important, because it shows that culture and behaviour can change and we can deliver real results.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that Newport, a city that we represent, has a good record with Wastesavers, a community project that sorts at source and is particularly effective?

[Ruth Jones]

That is an excellent point. Wastesavers is a brilliant project and I will try to make provisions for such projects in the Environment Bill when we come back to it. It is an example of great, integrated waste collection with high recycling rates.

Culture and behaviour can change and we can deliver real results. This instrument speaks to one element of the fight and I urge the Minister to go further, be bolder and do it faster. Wales acted in 2010 but voters across England, from west midlands to Hartlepool and from the west of England to West Yorkshire, had to wait a further five years before a half-measure ban on single-use bags was introduced in England, and that was applied to larger retailers only.

Now in 2021, this Government are now finally catching up with the good practice that Labour-led Wales has had in place for years. That is despite the fact that three years ago the 25-year environment plan committed to extending the application of the 5p plastic bag charge to small retailers and despite the fact that the public consultation on this proposal ended two years ago, in February 2019. That consultation showed enormous support from consumers and considerable support from businesses for the proposal. Again, all we can do is ask what were Ministers waiting for.

Like many, I have a number of questions that come from reading the legislation. First, while Labour supports the increase in the price of single-use carrier bags from 5p to 10p, will the Minister clarify the impact that that is likely to have on the sale of the more substantial bags for life that are currently sold for between 10p and 30p? As has been said, there is an added incentive for supermarkets to prioritise the sale of these bags because they can keep all the income without making a donation to good causes. The Minister has already said that there is evidence that the 95% reduction in single-use plastics has seen a corresponding increase in the sale of bags for life, with the average householder buying 57 bags for life per year, according to the research from Greenpeace. Has any consideration been given to a substantial increase in the price of bags for life? It has been suggested that a price of 70p would prevent the perverse consequences of this policy change. It follows the example of Ireland, which priced the bags at 70 cents and thereby cut their sale by 90%. Otherwise, is there not a danger that more bags for life will be purchased for single use with the consequent increased damage to the environment?

Secondly, why have the Government exempted small and medium-sized enterprises from using a proportion of the money raised from the sale of the bags to donate to good causes? This provision has worked well for larger supermarkets, so I am not sure of the Minister’s argument that that would be too complex. I do not think that that holds water. Most small shops have a charity box, and many are part of larger franchise arrangements, so it seems wrong in principle that they should benefit from a new revenue stream by selling goods that pollute the environment. Will there be a requirement on the supermarkets that already administer the 5p charge to donate all the additional five pences to good causes, given that the additional administration in increasing the price would be negligible? Does the Minister agree with Lord Khan, who made the point in the other place that donations should be made to charities specifically involved in protecting the environment or clearing up the litter that plastic bags cause?

My third point is that back in 2019, the resources and waste strategy set out a plan for resource efficiency and a circular economy that included an ambition that all plastics be biodegradable. It is clear that the environmental damage caused by single-use bags would be somewhat mitigated if there were a requirement for them to be biodegradable. What steps are the Government taking to prevent plastics, including plastic bags that are not biodegradable, from being in circulation?

Fourthly, why are the enforcement mechanisms restricted to being

“light touch, pragmatic and complaints led”?

I share the concern of many trading standards and local authorities that they simply will not have the resources to ensure that enforcement is truly effective. It would be helpful if the Minister took a moment to comment on that.

Finally, what further plans does the Minister have to make the manufacturers of single-use plastic bags more responsible for the environmental damage that they cause? Both the resources and waste strategy and the Environment Bill talk about the extended producer responsibility, based on the principle that the polluter pays. When are we going to start charging the manufacturers for producing these bags rather than putting the onus on the consumer to change their habits? That is much talked about as a policy, but we are yet to see any real action. Perhaps the Minister could reassure us today that the comprehensive extended producer responsibility package will be introduced into the Environment Bill when it finally comes back to the House.

The Environment Bill deserves a mention. Like so many communities across England, experts in the field and stakeholders campaigning on green issues, I am desperate to welcome the Environment Bill back to the House. The Bill received its Second Reading in February 2020, and we are almost in May 2021. During all those lost months, we have lost ground in our fight to save and protect the natural environment. The Opposition are ready to consider the Bill, to try to improve it and to work with anyone who is willing to work with us at the earliest opportunity. I urge a speedy resumption of our deliberations.

11:46

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the shadow Minister, as always, for her comments. I join her in offering Her Majesty belated birthday wishes, although I am not sure it will exactly be a happy birthday this year. I send our genuine sympathies to the shadow Whip, the hon. Member for North Tyneside, on the death of her husband. This happened to me two years ago, and I can honestly say that I know how she will be feeling. Will the shadow Minister please pass that on to her from us all?

[Ruth Jones]

Of course.

[Rebecca Pow]

In order for us to leave the environment in a better state than we found it for the next generation, it is essential that we get the right legislation in place to limit the impact on the natural world of our use of resources. Plastics are an incontrovertible cause of harm to our environment, both terrestrial and marine. These measures are an important part of our wider strategy to tackle plastic pollution. In addition, we are getting under way a raft of measures, not least the Treasury’s plastic tax and the ban on stirrers and straws. All the measures in the Environment Bill will help us to tackle plastics in the waste stream and their negative impact on the environment.

Perhaps I should touch first on the all-important Environment Bill. I think the shadow Minister is being slightly disingenuous, because work on it has not stopped. Indeed, this pause—it is only a pause—has enabled work to carry on with all speed on the targets, and on further strengthening the Bill and what it will trigger. That includes water quality targets. I know you are really keen on our water quality, Sir Charles, and those targets will help to drive improvement in chalk streams and all our rivers. We are also working hard on the air targets, and all the other important things that the Bill will trigger.

The Bill will put in place the measure to set up extended producer responsibility. That will put the onus on the manufacturers of plastic packaging to be responsible throughout its entire life cycle, and that includes where it ends up. Manufacturers will not want plastic packaging to end up as waste, so they will think hard and long about things such as its design and labelling. That will have a big impact on any plastic bags that are left in use, as I think the shadow Minister alluded to. We launched the second consultation on the matter on 24 March—the consultation ends on 4 June—so we are moving very quickly towards its introduction. A huge amount of work is going on to ensure that we get that absolutely right.

The shadow Minister touched on something that a lot of people question, namely why these bags are not biodegradable or compostable. I asked the same questions myself when I arrived in the Department, because it seemed straightforward. However, we have to consider what they biodegrade into. What chemicals, which then go into our soil and water, do they break down into? Biodegradable plastics are, by their nature, at odds with the principle of reuse and recycling; they are not reused or recycled, because they break down. Strong concerns have been raised about how biodegradable they are, and what they break down into. They might have a vital role to play in some very niche areas, but we are carrying out an awful lot of research into this, and at the moment there is a lot of concern about them. They will certainly not step in and replace plastic carrier bags.

I think the shadow Minister asked about the consultation on the order that we are considering. It was consulted on between December 2018 and February 2019, and the summary of responses was published on 31 March 2020. We received a lot of responses to the consultation right across the supply chain, from the waste industry, from non-governmental organisations and from members of the public, with pretty overwhelming support for the proposals. That was very positive.

The shadow Minister touched on the question of bags for life. They should be reused. They are not single-use bags; they are bags for life, as their name suggests. They will last longer than single-use plastic bags. If they are reused sufficiently, their overall environmental impact in comparison to single-use plastic bags is likely to be positive. Interestingly—I am not sure that a lot of people are aware of this, but let us make them aware—retailers are required to take back worn-out bags for life and replace them like for like, free of charge. The impact assessment that accompanies the legislation estimates an increase of 40% in the number of bags of life used over 10 years. However, the policy change will lead to an overall reduction of 21% in the number of bags supplied across all bag types—single-use carrier bags. bags for life, paper bags, cotton bags and so on—over that period, which will lead to an overall reduction in plastic usage. Do not forget my idea of wicker baskets, either.

The shadow Minister may be interested to hear that, as I mentioned in my speech, we will review how the whole system works once it is up and running for single-use carrier bags, and then we will consider extending to retailers those reporting requirements on bags for life. That is not included at the moment, but if it looks as though it would be helpful, it will certainly be looked at.

The shadow Minister touched on paper bags, and she expressed the concern that we were charging only for plastic bags when we ought to be charging for paper ones as well. For her information, paper bags need to be reused three to four times to have an impact equivalent to that of plastic. For cotton bags, the figure rises to 130 times. Paper bags may be littered or escape into the environment, but they are much less damaging than plastic, because they break down. Of course, cotton bags are rarely littered. The point is that the environmental impact of all bag types will be reduced by reuse. If we all reuse our bags, we will really reduce their impact.

[Ruth Jones]

The point I was trying to make about paper bags is that it takes four times as much energy to produce them as it does to produce plastic bags. It is not about what happens during their lifetime; it is about their production, which is so energy-inefficient.

[Rebecca Pow]

I have not got all the data to argue that point, but I think there is a case to be made for paper bags if the material comes from a sustainable source. We are working on our tree strategy now, and we are looking for all sorts of further markets for our own wood and offcuts. I think that could be debatable.

I am going to wind up now, Sir Charles, as I am sure you will be pleased to hear. I thank the shadow Minister for her contributions and for her challenging questions, which I hope I have answered. As I have outlined, these amendments to the regulations will extend the requirement to charge for single-use carrier bags to all retailers, remove the exemption from charging from airport sellers and increase the minimum mandatory charge from 5p to 10p. We are taking these steps to reduce our reliance on single-use plastics and to explore more sustainable alternatives. These draft order will definitely help us to do so, and I commend it to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

11:55

Committee rose.

Ministerial Corrections

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Ministerial Corrections

Thursday 22 April 2021

Government Equalities

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Ministerial Corrections

Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities

The following are extracts from the oral statement on the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities report.

[Kemi Badenoch]

This is a good time to remind the House that the current chair of the Runnymede Trust applied to be the Labour candidate for Poplar and Limehouse in 2019, but failed to make the shortlist. I would be keen to know whether the shadow Minister condemns those sorts of remarks, or believes that they are acceptable so long as they are targeted at people she disagrees with.

[Official Report, 20 April 2021, Vol. 692, c. 876.]

Letter of correction from the Minister for Equalities, the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch).

An error has been identified in the response I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt).

The correct response should have been:

[Kemi Badenoch]

This is a good time to remind the House that the current director of the Runnymede Trust applied to be the Labour candidate for Poplar and Limehouse in 2019, but failed to make the shortlist. I would be keen to know whether the shadow Minister condemns those sorts of remarks, or believes that they are acceptable so long as they are targeted at people she disagrees with.

[Kemi Badenoch]

We did not go to the race relations industry to ask people to tell us the same things they have been telling us for a long time; we went to people who work in the field such as doctors, teachers, policemen, scientists, economists and journalists—including, I might add, a former chair of the Runnymede Trust—to find out what we can do to improve disparities in this country.

[Official Report, 20 April 2021, Vol. 692, c. 880.]

Letter of correction from the Minister for Equalities, the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch).

An error has been identified in the response I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler).

The correct response should have been:

[Kemi Badenoch]

We did not go to the race relations industry to ask people to tell us the same things they have been telling us for a long time; we went to people who work in the field such as doctors, teachers, policemen, scientists, economists and journalists—including, I might add, a former director of the Runnymede Trust—to find out what we can do to improve disparities in this country.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question and note her comments about the former Runnymede Trust. We on the Conservative Benches have worked well with people such as Trevor Phillips, and one of the commissioners, Samir Shah, is also a former chair of the Runnymede Trust, but I cannot accept the behaviour of the current chair and some staff members.

[Official Report, 20 April 2021, Vol. 692, c. 883.]

Letter of correction from the Minister for Equalities, the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch).

An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi).

The correct response should have been:

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question and note her comments about the former Runnymede Trust. We on the Conservative Benches have worked well with people such as Trevor Phillips, and one of the commissioners, Samir Shah, is also a former chair of the Runnymede Trust, but I cannot accept the behaviour of the current director and some staff members.

[Kemi Badenoch]

It is interesting that the hon. Lady raises that point. The Runnymede Trust has said, according to a letter from the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, that the EHRC should not have funding. It implied that the EHRC should be defunded, so if she wants to talk about people who want to defund charities and organisations working on racial equality, she should ask the chair of the Runnymede Trust why she made that statement.

[Official Report, 20 April 2021, Vol. 692, c. 885.]

Letter of correction from the Minister for Equalities, the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch).

An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson).

The correct response should have been:

[Kemi Badenoch]

It is interesting that the hon. Lady raises that point. The Runnymede Trust has said, according to a letter from the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, that the EHRC should not have funding. It implied that the EHRC should be defunded, so if she wants to talk about people who want to defund charities and organisations working on racial equality, she should ask the director of the Runnymede Trust why she made that statement.

Finance (No.2) Bill (First sitting)

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Dame Angela Eagle, † Sir Gary Streeter

† Bacon, Gareth (Orpington) (Con)

† Badenoch, Kemi (Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury)

† Buchan, Felicity (Kensington) (Con)

† Coutinho, Claire (East Surrey) (Con)

† Eshalomi, Florence (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)

Grant, Peter (Glenrothes) (SNP)

† Higginbotham, Antony (Burnley) (Con)

† Jones, Andrew (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)

† Marson, Julie (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)

† Murray, James (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)

† Norman, Jesse (Financial Secretary to the Treasury)

† Oppong-Asare, Abena (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)

† Owen, Sarah (Luton North) (Lab)

† Russell, Dean (Watford) (Con)

† Rutley, David (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

† Smith, Jeff (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)

† Thewliss, Alison (Glasgow Central) (SNP)

Chris Stanton, Jo Dodd, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Thursday 22 April 2021

(Morning)

[Sir Gary Streeter in the Chair]

Finance (No.2) Bill

(Except Clauses 1 to 5; Clauses 6 to 14 and Schedule 1; Clauses 24 to 26; Clause 28; Clause 30 and Schedule 6; Clauses 31 to 33; Clause 36 and Schedule 7; Clause 40; Clause 41; Clause 86; Clauses 87 to 89 and Schedules 16 and 17; Clauses 90 and 91; Clauses 92 to 96 and Schedule 18; Clause 97 and Schedule 19; Clauses 109 to 111 and Schedules 21 and 22; Clause 115 and Schedule 27; Clauses 117 to 121 and Schedules 29 to 32; Clauses 128 to 130; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to: the impact of any provision on the financial resources of families or to the subject matter of Clauses 1 to 5, 24 to 26, 28, 31 to 33, 40 and 86; the subject matter of Clauses 6 to 14 and Schedule 1; the impact of any provision on regional economic development; tax avoidance or evasion; the subject matter of Clauses 87 to 89 and Schedules 16 and 17 and Clauses 90 and 91; the subject matter of Clauses 92 to 96 and Schedule 18, Clause 97 and Schedule 19 and Clauses 128 to 130)

[The Chair]

[The Chair]

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

[The Chair]

[Alison Thewliss]

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)]

[Alison Thewliss]

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)]

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

[The Chair]

[James Murray]

[Kemi Badenoch]

[Jesse Norman]

[James Murray]

Although we note that no public consultation was carried out on this matter, the clause’s effect on the public finances is negligible and is time limited during covid. The beneficiaries will be a small number of plant or machinery leaseholders, and the main stakeholder is the Finance and Leasing Association, which supports the clause. We therefore do not oppose its standing part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18

Temporary extension of periods to which trade losses may be carried back

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

[Jesse Norman]

[Alison Thewliss]

[James Murray]

[Jesse Norman]

[The Chair]

[Jesse Norman]

[James Murray]

[Jesse Norman]

[James Murray]

[The Chair]

[James Murray]

[Jesse Norman]

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

[Jesse Norman]

Amendment 23 seeks to extend SITR’s sunset clause to April 2026. Between 2014 and 2018-19 about 110 social enterprises raised £11.2 million in investment. I fully appreciate that SITR has supported these enterprises in accessing finance, but as all would concur, this has been a very modest rate of progress compared with what was originally expected when the relief was introduced in 2014. We committed to review SITR and published a call for evidence. Following a careful assessment of that evidence, we decided to extend as set out in the clause. The Treasury believes that all taxes and reliefs must meet their policy objectives in a way that is fair and objective, and that is what this extension is designed to do.

The hon. Member for Ealing North asked what the Government are doing to improve take-up. The answer is that we are closely engaging with stakeholders on this issue. We have supported awareness campaigns in the past and we continue to work with Big Society Capital, but the plain fact is that this relief is not especially attractive. I have told stakeholders that I would welcome a more fundamental reconsideration.

Finally, on the question about the split between loan and equity, I am not sure that those numbers exist, but I will ask officials to check and will send the hon. Gentleman the details if we have them.

Social enterprises play a vital social and economic role across the United Kingdom. That is something that you, Sir Gary, and I know from personal experience. They have been a deeply important factor in this country’s development history. Many have brilliantly supported communities through the covid-19 pandemic. The Government want to continue support for the sector, but they need to ensure that these reliefs are appropriately managed. That is what this clause does.

[James Murray]

[Jesse Norman]

[James Murray]

[Jesse Norman]

[Alison Thewliss]

[The Chair]

[Alison Thewliss]

[James Murray]

[Jesse Norman]

[Alison Thewliss]

[Kemi Badenoch]

[James Murray]

[The Chair]

[Jesse Norman]

[Alison Thewliss]

[James Murray]

[Jesse Norman]

[The Chair]

[Jesse Norman]

[James Murray]

[Jesse Norman]

[Jesse Norman]

[James Murray]

[Jesse Norman]

[James Murray]

[Alison Thewliss]

[Jesse Norman]

[The Chair]

[Jesse Norman]

[James Murray]

[Jesse Norman]

[James Murray]

[Jesse Norman]

[James Murray]

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill (Fifth sitting)

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Judith Cummins, Mr Philip Hollobone, Esther McVey, † Derek Twigg

† Baker, Duncan (North Norfolk) (Con)

Bell, Aaron (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)

† Blackman, Kirsty (Aberdeen North) (SNP)

† Butler, Dawn (Brent Central) (Lab)

† Crosbie, Virginia (Ynys Môn) (Con)

† Fletcher, Mark (Bolsover) (Con)

† Flynn, Stephen (Aberdeen South) (SNP)

† Furniss, Gill (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)

† Hunt, Jane (Loughborough) (Con)

† Mayhew, Jerome (Broadland) (Con)

† Metcalfe, Stephen (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)

† Onwurah, Chi (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)

Owen, Sarah (Luton North) (Lab)

† Richardson, Angela (Guildford) (Con)

† Solloway, Amanda (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy)

† Tomlinson, Michael (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury)

† Zeichner, Daniel (Cambridge) (Lab)

Sarah Ioannou, Seb Newman, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Thursday 22 April 2021

(Morning)

[Derek Twigg in the Chair]

Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill

11:30

[The Chair]

Order. We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. We now continue our line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection and grouping list for today’s sitting is available in the room. As Members are aware, the selection and grouping list shows the order of debate on amendments, clauses, schedules and new clauses. The decisions on each follow the order of consideration, which is reflected in the way in which the amendments are marshalled on the amendment paper. A Member who has put their name to the leading amendment in the group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments within the group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate.

At the end of the debate on a group of amendments, new clauses and schedules, I shall call the Member who moved the leading amendment or new clause again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate if they wish to withdraw the amendment or seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendments, including grouped new clauses and schedules, they need to let me know.

Clause 3

Ambitious research, development and exploitation: tolerance to failure

11:31

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 3, page 2, line 20, at end insert—

“(2) On or before the date that an annual report is laid before Parliament in accordance with paragraph 15(4) of Schedule 1, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, and publish, a statement containing the required information about details of funding and ARIA’s tolerance to failure.

(3) In this section, the required information about ARIA’s tolerance to failure is—

(a) how this section has been interpreted by ARIA during the relevant financial year,

(b) the number and value of projects funded by ARIA which have been terminated or disbanded on the grounds of failure during the relevant financial year, and

(c) details of ARIA’s funding in the relevant financial year and its proportion of Government research and development expenditure.”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make an annual statement regarding ARIA’s tolerance to failure.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. Before I speak to amendment 19, I want to say that that in the intervening time between the previous sitting and today, I have managed to break my foot, which was truly an achievement, given that all I was doing was running. If I am not as quick to rise as I would otherwise be, I hope you will be forgiving, Mr Twigg. The Minister said on Tuesday that the Advanced Research and Invention Agency might contribute to being able to “Beam me up, Scotty!” That would have been highly desirable as I tried to make my way into this place this morning. I am sure we wish ARIA luck in that. I am grateful to everyone for their indulgence as I deal with my new-found injury.

Amendment 19 would require that the Secretary of State makes an annual statement about ARIA’s tolerance to failure, in order to provide greater oversight and responsibility. It is very much in keeping with all the amendments that the Opposition have tabled. It is a constructive amendment that seeks to ensure that ARIA’s mission, when it has one, and its workings are understood by the public in general and that we have the right oversight to ensure that ARIA is not in any way subject to or tainted by the sleaze that is all too common and evident in the current Government’s procurement dealings with their mates. We believe that it is right that ARIA should be given operational independence from Government. We support the idea of specifying that it has a high tolerance to risk and failure, but the challenge is to establish what that tolerance is and to ensure that it is scrutinised properly and that there is public understanding of it.

We believe that ARIA should have a high-risk appetite, but we need greater clarity in order to understand how that appetite will be determined, calibrated and explained, and how Ministers will be accountable for ARIA’s failure and success with public money. That is critical and it was a theme of the evidence sessions that, if we are to maintain public support, we must be open and honest about ARIA’s tolerance to failure.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very good introduction to today’s proceedings. I express my sympathy to her for having to stand up and sit down; I will not make her do it too often.

The evidence sessions brought some of this out, but does she agree that attitudes to failure in our country are very different from those in America in particular, which is where we are learning lessons from in establishing the agency? Given that, does she also agree that this is a particularly important amendment? The British attitude towards failures is not very tolerant; we do not necessarily view them as being positive. There is a risk here because unless we get this right, it will be difficult for those establishing the agency to be able to explain what they are doing to a wider audience.

[The Chair]

Ms Onwurah, if it becomes uncomfortable standing, please remain seated.

[Chi Onwurah]

Thank you, Mr Twigg. I will do that. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge for expressing his sympathy. It is always a pleasure to give way to his interventions because he makes such excellent points. Indeed, his point about the differences in culture was brought out in the evidence session, particularly by Professor Glover from the Royal Society of Edinburgh, who said that

“the biggest challenge might be—this will help in engaging with citizens—being up front right at the very beginning that we expect failure, and that failure is part of the measure of success for an agency like ARIA, because if you were not taking any risks, you would not get any failure. The challenge is that, culturally in the UK, and quite differently, I think, from North America, we see failure through an emotional lens, not a scientific lens, whereas I think the opposite is the case in North America. We need to think about that. In a way, just talking about it and saying that that is the case makes it easier for people to understand that we need to fail in order to get the big rewards.”––[Official Report, Advanced Research and Invention Agency Public Bill Committee, 14 April 2021; c. 61, Q58.]

That goes to my hon. Friend’s point and to the heart of this amendment. We have a cultural difference here in the UK. As someone who has worked in technology in the UK, France and the US, it is very noticeable to me that in the US, for example, a failure is a mark of experience from which one will go on to succeed better, whereas here a failure is intoned in negative headlines and comments.

I am sure the Minister will agree that in order for ARIA to have public support we need to change that culture. By seeking an annual statement on ARIA’s tolerance of failure, our amendment would make a significant contribution and help the public understand the importance of failure. When ARIA fails, there will be headlines saying that public money has been wasted. Certain newspapers, and perhaps even certain politicians, may say that. Would there not be support for both ARIA and the Secretary of State, whoever that may be, if the successes of this high-risk agency were mapped and placed in the context of the failures from which they directly stem?

Our amendment will provide details of the funding provided to high-risk research compared with public investment in wider science and research, so that the public can better understand the proportion of research funding going to this high-risk, high-reward investment. Without public buy-in, it will be very difficult to ensure long-term support for ARIA. Indeed, a consistent theme of the science community’s response to public funding is that it needs to be long term. The amendment would help to ensure that ARIA is not disabled, as it were, at the first failure. We recognise, and this was said in the evidence sessions, that there is a very high probability that ARIA will have a high number of failures, even if the level of failure is difficult to predict.

We want the Minister to be responsible for ARIA’s failures. Although the agency must act independently, this is public money, so there needs to be parliamentary and ministerial accountability for it. In particular, we do not want to see ARIA’s chief executive, whoever that may be, politically abandoned at the first failure. The amendment would help to ensure that accountability and wider understanding are there from the very beginning.

Dame Ottoline Leyser of UK Research and Innovation said:

“In that domain, where you have a very high probability of failure—that is what high risk means—but also an extraordinary probability of amazing levels of transformative success, it is a dice roll. The total number of projects will be relatively small, so it is very hard to predict an absolute number or proportion that one would expect, and one should not need to—that is what high risk, high reward means.––[Official Report, Advanced Research and Invention Agency Public Bill Committee, 14 April 2021; c. 12, Q7.]

We understand that we cannot predict the levels of failure, but by measuring and reporting on them, and by ensuring that there is a wider public understanding of them, we can help to begin cultural change, as well as ensure the long-term support for high-risk, high-reward research, which ARIA so fundamentally needs.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)]

May I start by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg? I wish my colleague the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central well. In fact, I was just reflecting that if we were on the Star Trek Enterprise, we could have beamed her up and Dr McCoy could have sorted her out.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the Minister for her very kind remarks. I probably should have said earlier that the NHS, and the Royal Free Hospital, which treated me, showed all the support, kindness and innovation that Bones in “Star Trek” would have done.

[The Chair]

We need to come back to the business now.

[Amanda Solloway]

I add my appreciation for the NHS as well. I welcome the debate so far and look forward to continuing the discussion on this important Bill.

As part of the discussion on amendment 19, I will draw on two comments about failure in research that we heard in last week’s evidence sessions. The first is Bob Sorrell’s point that, compared with the US,

“there is a definite culture in the UK that failure is something that you hide under the carpet”.

He went on to say that ARIA

“is about establishing a culture in which we can accept failure and move on.”––[Official Report, Advanced Research and Invention Agency Public Bill Committee, 14 April 2021; c. 76, Q79.]

My worry is that the amendment, which requires the publication of a statement containing information regarding ARIA’s tolerance to failure, just misses the point. Focusing on the number and value of project failures versus successes as an annual output risks creating the wrong mindset, and risks losing sight of the ambitious multi-year goals.

It is also the case that assessing the failure of programmes and projects on an annual basis might have the effect of limiting risk-taking over the longer term. A high-potential project might qualify as a failure after one year, even though it may deliver great results over the longer term.

The second comment was made by Professor Dame Ottoline Leyser, who questioned how we will know that ARIA has succeeded, and what one would expect the percentage failure to be. She said:

“There is also serendipity…to factor in. If you set yourself a fantastic target of solving a particular problem or producing a particular new product and you fail to do that, none the less, along the way you might discover something extraordinary that you can apply in another field.”––[Official Report, Advanced Research and Invention Agency Public Bill Committee, 14 April 2021; c. 12, Q7.]

Although ambitious research goals might not ultimately be achieved, ARIA will generate value from failures and should therefore embrace failure, and there is value in knowing what does not work, as well as in the successes.

11:44

ARIA will also be a great convenor of talent that would not otherwise be brought together. It is through the serendipity that value arises, which would not be captured by the information that the hon. Lady’s amendment would require. I therefore urge her to withdraw the amendment.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the Minister for her remarks. We agree on the need for ARIA and for high-risk, high-reward research, but perhaps we differ on whether the publish share an understanding of that need. There are also, unfortunately, the realities of the environment in which we live: our culture does not have a high tolerance of failure. We truly believe that it is incumbent on us as parliamentarians and leaders to take what steps we can to help transform the situation and to not leave ARIA alone, so that we can all better understand the role that failure will play.

I am reluctant to detain the Committee. This was meant to be a constructive amendment, but if it has not met with the approval of the Minister, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Amanda Solloway]

It is absolutely vital that ARIA operates at the cutting edge of science and technology, and I have consistently heard from the scientific community that ARIA must tolerate the risk of failure to succeed. This idea gets to the very heart of what ARIA is about and on Second Reading there was also cross-party support for it, too.

ARIA will set highly ambitious research goals, which, if they are achieved, will bring about transformative scientific and technological advances, and those advances could also yield significant economic and social benefits. It follows that, as these goals are expected to be highly ambitious, it is likely that only a small fraction of them will be fully realised as originally intended, which will necessarily require a high tolerance of failure. For example, it might be that when some failures are judged over a longer time horizon, they will lead to unexpected successful outcomes. Clause 3 allows ARIA, in exercising its functions, to give particular weight to ambitious research, development and exploitation, which carry a high risk of failure.

I will just say a few words about failure. Although ambitious goals might not ultimately be achieved, ARIA will generate value from project failures. For example, a particular goal may not prove technologically viable, but in pursuing it scientists may happen across another promising technology or develop a new method of data collection. There is also value to be had in knowing what does not work, as well as in the successes.

ARIA is also expected to be a convener of high-calibre individuals and organisations from across the public and private sectors, which otherwise might not have been brought together. However, ARIA is not just about ambitious research goals. Clause 3 also allows ARIA to take greater risks in the form of the support it provides, including the use of innovation funding mechanisms. For example, clause 3 provides ARIA with the potential to take equity stakes in start-up ventures for the purpose of developing and exploiting scientific research.

That approach also extends to funding research and development that is untested and untried, and not necessarily peer-reviewed, which is a clear dividing line between ARIA and other public research and development funders, such as UK Research and Innovation. For ARIA to be a fruitful addition to the R&D funding landscape, it must be able to pursue truly ambitious targets and to support them in a novel and sometimes risky way. It must not be scared of failure, and clause 3 seeks to enable that mindset and approach.

[Chi Onwurah]

We recognise that clause 3 is essential to enabling and empowering ARIA and ARIA executives in tolerating failure. That is part of ARIA, and the clause has our support.

On the exercising of functions in the Bill, following our debate on an amendment debated in the previous sitting, the Minister kindly sent me a letter about how the Secretary of State might consider removing the chair from their position. I thank the Minister for her comments that set out the way in which the chair might be removed. I point out that our amendment would have given powers to remove an executive member and the Bill only gives powers to remove a non-executive member, which is the issue we were concerned about.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly order to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Grants to ARIA from the Secretary of State

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Amanda Solloway]

Clause 4 creates a power for the Secretary of State to fund ARIA. The Committee will be aware that the Government have committed to funding ARIA with £800 million up to financial year 2024-25. The clause allows the Secretary of State to attach conditions to the grants made to ARIA, which will be set out in the framework document and funding delegation letter, which are agreed between my Department and ARIA. The documents will be drafted and agreed with ARIA’s senior leadership team ahead of ARIA becoming operational in 2022.

The documents will complement the Bill, setting the broad parameters within which ARIA can operate and ensuring appropriate use of public money. It is a requirement for arm’s-length bodies of Government Departments to have these arrangements in place. I will be exceptionally mindful that we do not tie ARIA up in knots with endless Government approval processes, as that would run counter to what ARIA is about, but some parameters must be put in place to safeguard the use of public money.

For example, I have spoken about the importance of providing ARIA’s high-calibre programme managers with the freedom to experiment with a toolkit of funding methods in a way that best suits the programme goals and that does not always fund the usual suspects. As the policy statement sets out, that may include the use of inducement prizes, grant-prize hybrids and seed grants, taking equity stakes and so on. Some of ARIA’s activities could be subject to delegation levels, which limit the amount of a single type of activity, for example. The ability to attach conditions to grants paid by the Secretary of State to ARIA will set the appropriate framework within which ARIA can then freely determine its activities and funding choices without ministerial interference.

Clause 4 is as significant in what it does not say as in what it does. Unlike the corresponding clause in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, clause 4 does not include a direction-making power regarding the allocation or expenditure of ARIA. This is important because the funding decision-making power should rest with ARIA, not Ministers. Clause 4, in allowing ARIA to be funded, is essential to its functioning and should stand part of the Bill.

[Chi Onwurah]

As the Minister said, clause 4 enables the Secretary of State to make grants to ARIA. It is clearly essential—what is the point of an agency that is not able to receive funds? While we do not oppose the clause, however, we are concerned about the general tone and language in the discussion of the way in which grants and funding will be made available to ARIA.

The Minister talked about not burdening ARIA with bureaucracy. At this time, there are a number of investigations into accusations of sleaze and the inappropriate ways that funding has been made available to the mates of different Secretaries of State. Funding and procurement have been carried on through WhatsApp groups, rather than through the normal procurement procedures, for example. I believe that the clause would have benefited from setting out more robustly the importance of the procedures, which are to be agreed, as well as the importance of what the Minister calls “bureaucracy” in enabling and ensuring trust, which is so very important for this agency.

In the debate on Tuesday, the Minister talked about a “different model of trust” for ARIA. I put on the record that the Opposition believe strongly that it is not the model of trust that is wrong, but the way in which it is being followed or implemented by this Government. We believe that the current model of trust needs to be supported in relation to ARIA and in all funding and procurement decisions.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

National Security Directions

[Chi Onwurah]

I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 5, page 2, line 33, at end insert—

“(4) The Secretary of State must, in relation to each financial year—

(a) prepare a report in accordance with this section, and

(b) provide a copy of it to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament as soon as is practicable after the end of that period.

(5) Each report must provide details of—

(a) any directions made under this section in the relevant financial year, and

(b) the nature of the national risks posed which triggered the making of the directions.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to prepare and provide to the ISC an annual report on any directions made under this section.

It is a great pleasure to move this amendment, which proposes an essential addition to the Bill. It would require the Secretary of State to prepare and provide to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament an annual report on any direction made under the clause. I remind the Committee that clause 5 states that

“(1) The Secretary of State may give ARIA directions as to the exercise of its functions if the Secretary of State considers it necessary or expedient in the interests of national security. (2) The power to give directions under this section includes power to vary or revoke a direction. (3) ARIA must comply with a direction given under this section.”

We in the Labour party are very clear that we are the party of national security—[Interruption.] Would anybody like to intervene? Let me say it again: we are the party of national security, and we believe that it is vital that decisions taken by the Government reflect our national security interests. That is clearly in the interests of the nation. The first duty of any Government, of any colour, is to keep our nation secure, and we are very pleased that the Bill recognises the importance of national security. Indeed, we are often concerned that, at times, it seems that this Government place business interests, particularly foreign investment, ahead of national security.

Obviously, national security is an important consideration, but the issue and the challenge here is that, under the Bill as drafted, those directions cannot be subject to adequate parliamentary scrutiny. I am reluctant to remind the Committee again, but the Government are in the midst of a cronyism scandal. The Bill places power and responsibility in the hands of the Secretary of State, with little ongoing accountability generally. Part of our constructive approach to the Bill is to try to ensure that there is appropriate scrutiny provision throughout the Bill, particularly given that it was drafted before the cronyism scandal that has had such an impact on the public’s trust in procurement, funding and other decisions taken by this Government.

It is essential that the directions that the Secretary of State gives be subject to scrutiny, but how will that be possible under the Bill as it stands? A Select Committee does not have the intelligence clearance to discuss matters of national security. I hope that it is in order for me to remark that I have had the good fortune to work on the National Security and Investment Bill and the Telecommunication (Security) Bill as they have come through Parliament in the last few months. In both Bill Committees, we discussed the issue of a Secretary of State taking decisions on grounds of national security. By definition, those decisions would not be able to be subject to scrutiny, because only the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament has the intelligence clearance to scrutinise such decisions. By enabling that scrutiny, we want to correct the oversight of giving to the Secretary of State powers that are not subject to scrutiny.

The reports that we are proposing would be annual, coinciding with the financial year, and would provide Parliament with an accurate and periodic update on the impact of these measures on our national security. The Bill allows the Secretary of State to take decisions in the name of national security, but without any obligation to inform or liaise with the ISC. If the Minister objects to the way that the report would be required, we are quite happy to discuss other ways in which the ISC can provide the appropriate scrutiny.

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy does not have a long-standing tradition of implementing national security measures. It was only very recently, with the National Security and Investment Bill, for example, which has yet to complete its stages in the House, that BEIS was given the powers to look at mergers and acquisitions and so on based on national security. We believe that experienced and qualified oversight is needed. If the Minister is reluctant to support the amendment, I would like to hear from her how the Secretary of State’s powers will be scrutinised.

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I am intrigued by the amendment, because on the one hand, the Opposition were very keen with amendment 15 that ARIA’s mission be to drive the net zero agenda; on the other hand, this amendment would require the Secretary of State to report to the ISC. Can she explain where she thinks a report on the potential for net zero to the ISC would be necessary and what it would achieve?

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which I hope does not reflect a lack of understanding of the ways in which science research and our national interest work. On national security, a direction could be given to ARIA not to work in nuclear energy with a Government whose interests did not align with our own, for example. That is quite a relevant example, because we know that, rather than investing in it themselves—even though interest rates are so low at the moment—the Government have welcomed, and even encouraged, investment in our nuclear energy by the Chinese. Some kind of direction might well be given on that basis. There are many ways in which climate change is essential to our national security, so I do not think that example was very well chosen.

More generally, if the hon. Member is asking how trade-offs between national security and other priorities should be made, which is a very important question, we have already said that we believe in national security, and national security should always be the priority. However, when such a direction is made for reasons of national security, which we support, the fact is that we will not know why it was made. Perhaps that is right, because if it is an issue of national security, those concerns should not be shared publicly; none the less, somebody needs to scrutinise them. I hope everybody on this Committee will agree that someone in Parliament should be scrutinising decisions on national security, particularly when those decisions are taken by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. As I have already said, neither the Department nor the Secretary of State has long experience of making national security decisions.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I fully take the point made by the hon. Member for North Norfolk, but we Opposition Members have a degree of prescience in being able to predict the way that votes in this Committee might go. We anticipated that the Government might not accept our suggestion about giving ARIA this mission. Does not that the lack of a mission create this further problem? If we had had that clear mission around climate, this would be far less of an issue.

[Chi Onwurah]

Once again, my hon. Friend raises an excellent point, and indeed he brings together the themes of our amendments. He is right to say that if ARIA had a clear mission, there would be better understanding of the kinds of decisions and trade-offs that might well need to be made, and we could have a much better informed discussion around that. However, the fact is that we have neither a mission for ARIA, nor any opportunity to scrutinise the national security directives that might be made in the interests of addressing climate change, but also might be made in the interests of ensuring that we have oil drilling rights, or that we continue to fund minerals extraction around the world in order to support other research objectives. It is clear to us that we need to have this scrutiny.

As I indicated, there have been a number of debates on Intelligence and Security Committee scrutiny of other Departments, including in relation to the National Security and Investment Bill and the Telecommunications (Security) Bill. In those cases, despite that Committee being keen to scrutinise national security decisions, the Government have shown a great reluctance to allow parliamentary scrutiny of issues of national security. Some believe—I am not one of those cynical people—that this is because the Government are not happy with Parliament’s choice of Chair of the ISC. I am loath to believe that the Government would be so petty when it comes to such an important matter as national security, so I hope the Minister will clarify how we will have appropriate scrutiny of national security decisions made by the Secretary of State, as set out in this Bill, and why the ISC is not the right vehicle for that.

I will finish with two brief quotes in support of the amendment. In the National Security and Investment Bill Committee, we had the great privilege of taking evidence from Richard Dearlove, former head of the British Secret Intelligence Service.

He said:

“My view would be that the annual report has as much transparency as possible, but you are probably going to require a secret annexe from time to time. It is a bit like the reports of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which I dealt with frequently as chief. They and we were keen that they should publish their reports, but there comes a point where it is not in our national interest that some of this stuff is put in the public domain.”

––[Official Report, National Security and Investment Public Bill Committee, 24 November 2020; c. 21, Q23.]

That is the case here as well.

My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has said:

“I do not want to give the impression that the ISC is looking for work, because I have been a member for a number of years and we are busy with a lot of inquiries—I have three or four hours’ reading every week looking through reports from the agencies. However, it is important that the ISC can at least look at the intelligence that lies behind decisions.”––[Official Report, Telecommunications (Security) Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2021; c. 143.]

That is all that we are seeking to achieve through this amendment.

[Amanda Solloway]

Amendment 20 would require the Secretary of State to provide a report to the Intelligence and Security Committee at the end of each financial year detailing directions made by the Secretary of State to ARIA in the interests of national security and the national security risks that triggered the directions.

The Government take very seriously their duty to protect the national security of the country and its citizens. The ISC plays a valuable role in providing scrutiny and expertise in respect of its functions, as set out in the Justice and Security Act 2013 and the statutory memorandum of understanding. However, that remit does not extend to oversight of BEIS work.

I do not see any reason why such a report should be necessary. No such arrangements exist with UKRI through the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. Instead, the organisation has robust national security arrangements in place to ensure that appropriate action is taken. Similar arrangements will be put in place as ARIA becomes operational, and we are speaking with the relevant parts of Government to make sure that that is the case.

The clause reflects the fact that, while ARIA will be free from ministerial interference, we will always act on our responsibility to protect our national security. Information made known to the Secretary of State will be fed into the wider work of the Government to protect UK R&D from national security risks as appropriate. I see no case for ARIA to report on that to the ISC. I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the Minister for her comments, but she has not responded to the underlying and constructive aim of the amendment, which is to ensure that the ISC has sight of intelligence and security decisions.

She makes a comparison with UKRI. This agency is about high-risk, high-reward research, which we are told will be transformative. During many of our National Security and Investment Bill Committee debates, the point was raised that the nature of national security threats is changing and, as we heard numerous times in evidence, has moved, and is moving, very much into the technological domain. The question whether or not we play a leading role in artificial intelligence, for example, is an issue of national security, as are our cyber defences, which I am sure any chief executive of ARIA would be keen to look at. The agency needs the kind of intelligence scrutiny that only the Intelligence and Security Committee can give. On that basis, I would like to press the amendment to a vote.

12:15

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 14

Ayes: 6

---

Labour: 4
Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 9

---

Conservative: 9

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Amanda Solloway]

Clause 5 creates a power for the Secretary of State to give directions to ARIA regarding the exercising of its functions that are considered necessary or expedient in the interests of national security. It is right that ARIA is free from too much ministerial oversight. However, when it comes to questions of national security, Ministers may intervene to prevent risk to the UK’s national security interests.

The necessary and expedient threshold of clause 5 offers adequate protection and limits the possibility of ministerial overreach, owing to a more broadly defined power. The direction-making power with which ARIA must comply can be general—for example, a direction not to conduct research in conjunction with partners from a particular jurisdiction that poses a threat to the United Kingdom’s national security—or specific: for example, a direction to terminate a specific contract.

Subsection (2) states that the directions include the

“power to vary or revoke”,

which is to say that directions can be altered or withdrawn depending on how the national security risk develops or subsides.

I would like to take this opportunity to assure the Committee that my team are working hard to ensure that ARIA is set up with national security risks front of mind. That ranges from reducing the risk of cyber-attacks, to ensuring that ARIA is plugged to the appropriate Whitehall national security networks. This work complements a direct-making power in the Bill.

[Chi Onwurah]

As I have said, Labour is the party of national security.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

The hon. Lady has said on a number of occasions that Labour is the party of national security. I would be very interested to hear her views about what date it became the party of national security. If my memory serves me right, Sir Richard Dearlove, to whom the hon. Lady has referred approvingly, said that the former leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), was a personal risk to national security, particularly if he ever got the keys to No. 10. He said:

“Do not even think of handing this politician the keys to No10.”

If that was the Labour party’s approach under his leadership, at what stage did it change its mind about national security?

[Chi Onwurah]

I am really disappointed in the hon. Gentleman for trying to make our national security an issue of party politics, and in particular for quoting a supposed critique of politicians by our intelligence service from previous years. I do not think that such comments have a place in this debate. We have elected leaders. I could go into a long list of quotations about our current Prime Minister and the concerns that he raises in many people’s minds, including from when he was Foreign Secretary.

[The Chair]

I think we should stick to the business at hand.

[Chi Onwurah]

I recognise that, Mr Twigg, but let us be clear. When I say that we are the party of national security, it is also what the shadow Secretary of State for Defence and my party leader say. That is a statement, and I really do not think it was appropriate of the hon. Member for Broadland to try to undermine the unity on both sides of the House with regard to the importance of national security. I fear that that is what he was trying to do.

As I was saying, Labour is the party of national security and believes strongly in the importance of the Secretary of State’s ability to give directions informed by national security. However, I feel that the Minister has yet to set out how those directions will be scrutinised. That remains a significant concern for the Opposition if we are to be sure that those directions are really driven by our national security interests and if we are to give the scrutiny that ensures continuing public confidence. However, given the importance of national security, we will clearly not be opposing clause 5.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Information

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 6, page 2, line 38, at end insert—

“(2) ARIA must provide relevant Select Committees of the House of Commons and the House of Lords with such information as the Select Committees may request.”

This amendment is intended to allow relevant parliamentary Select Committees to access information in order to scrutinise the value for money provided by ARIA.

I will not say a huge amount about the amendment, which pretty much speaks for itself. As ARIA is not subject to freedom of information, I think it incredibly important that there should be a commitment from the Minister that ARIA will provide information to Select Committees if they request it. If the Minister will stand up and say that ARIA will of course provide information to Select Committees, I will withdraw my amendment post haste.

[Amanda Solloway]

Amendment 27 would require ARIA to provide information requested by relevant Select Committees in both Houses. Sufficient measures are already in place to ensure that Select Committees have access to information that would allow them to scrutinise the work of Government Departments and public bodies.

I agree that Select Committees play an important role in examining the work of arm’s length bodies, and I am grateful for the interest and insight that the Science and Technology Committees in both Houses have had into ARIA so far. However, the Osmotherly rules provide guidance for how Government Departments and public bodies should interact with Select Committees. They are clear that the members of arm’s length bodies should be as helpful as possible in providing accurate, truthful and full information when giving evidence, taking care to ensure that no information is withheld that would not be exempted if a parallel request were made to the body under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I believe that that is sufficient to ensure co-operation and a constructive relationship between ARIA and relevant Select Committees, as it is for other bodies such as UKRI.

On scrutiny of ARIA’s value for money, as was set out in discussions on schedule 1 the National Audit Office can conduct value-for-money assessment in the usual way. I wanted to address a comment made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central on Tuesday about the role of the National Audit Office in scrutinising the work of ARIA. I do not agree that the safeguard is very limited; in fact, value-for-money assessments are rigorous and robust, and provide the basis for the Public Accounts Committee’s hearings and reports. I therefore believe that the right arrangements are in place for Select Committees to scrutinise the work of ARIA. That is in line with standard practice. I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North will withdraw her amendment.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I thank the Minister for her statement. She has made it clear that she expects ARIA to comply and not withhold information necessary for Select Committees. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

        Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Amanda Solloway]

Clause 6 focuses on the Secretary of State’s information rights with respect to ARIA. The Secretary of State may request information relating to his or her functions—for example, information required to determine the Government’s funding of ARIA, to make national security directions, or for the appointment or removal of board members. It is important that the Secretary of State has the information that he or she requires to perform relevant functions.

The information rights remain limited compared with the other arm’s length bodies of Government Departments. The Bill does not allow the Secretary of State to request ARIA’s strategy or delivery plan, for example, as the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 does with respect to UKRI. A limited set of information rights is an important feature of maintaining ARIA’s independence from Government, and it also helps the body to be an agile organisation that can focus on high-risk, high-reward research.

I remind the Committee that this is not the extent of the information provided by ARIA. As we have discussed with respect to schedule 1, for example, ARIA must also send a copy of its statement of accounts and annual report to the Secretary of State, to be laid before Parliament. It is also in the gift of the Secretary of State to oblige ARIA to make other types of information available—via the framework document, for example—as a condition of funding under clause 4. Clearly, it is important to strike a balance between transparency in the use of public moneys and not operationally overburdening a small organisation.

The clause also sets out stipulations regarding the handling of information. Disclosure of information by ARIA under the clause does not breach any obligation of confidence owed by ARIA, and does not, for example, require a disclosure of information should it contravene data protection legislation. I hope that hon. Members agree that the information rights set out in the clause are important to allow the Secretary of State to carry out their functions effectively.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the Minister for summarising clause 6. The theme of many of our amendments has been the importance of communication, information, understanding ARIA and its mission, and accountability, so we support the requirement for information to be provided by ARIA to the Secretary of State as appropriate. The duties in the clause seem entirely appropriate, but I have a couple of concerns that I hope the Minister will either respond to or perhaps write to me about.

Clause 6(3) states:

“A disclosure of information required under this section does not breach—

(a) any obligation of confidence owed by ARIA, or

(b) any other restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed).”

Perhaps this is something that I should already understand, but I am not clear whether commercial confidentiality would come under subsection (3). If ARIA were funding, as I hope it will, a high-risk, high-reward and sensitive project, would that be excluded on the grounds of commercial confidentiality? There is no requirement for the information that ARIA provides to the Secretary of State to be published or shared more broadly, so I would hope that commercially confidential information could be shared.

Subsection (4) states:

“This section does not require a disclosure of information if the disclosure would contravene the data protection legislation.”

Clearly, if disclosure contravened data protection legislation, it would be illegal, so I am somewhat confused about a requirement on ARIA not to break existing laws. I am happy for the Minister to write to me to say under what circumstances there might be a need to share information, the disclosure of which would contravene data protection legislation. I can only think that it might involve personal information, which suggests that the Secretary of State would ask for personal information. Earlier, we discussed the gender pay gap and disclosing information on that. Did the Minister think that that might contravene data protection legislation if, for example, only women worked for ARIA?

Those are my concerns, and I would be obliged to the Minister if she wrote to me about those questions, but we will not oppose the clause standing part.

12:30

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Transfer schemes

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Amanda Solloway]

The clause introduces schedule 2, which contains provisions about schemes for transfer of staff, property, rights and liabilities to ARIA. It is very straightforward.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2

Transfer schemes

Question proposed, That the schedule be the Second schedule to the Bill.

[Amanda Solloway]

The schedule allows the Secretary of State to make one or more property or staff transfer schemes to ARIA. The permitted transferors are the Secretary of State or UKRI. The supplementary powers are standard and mirror those in, for example, the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. The principal purpose of clause 7 and schedule 2 is to ensure that important assets and personnel can be transferred from BEIS or, if required, UKRI, as ARIA is set up. For example, the chief executive officer and chair may be temporarily contracted to BEIS before ARIA becomes operational. It is administratively convenient to be able to use the power to transfer those staff to ARIA. Paragraph (4) provides that

“A staff transfer scheme may make provision which is the same as or similar to the TUPE regulations.”

That means that employers’ rights of transfer remain the same.

Alternatively, in the ARIA set-up phase, contracts may be entered into for an office lease or seed funding, which could be transferred to ARIA without contract novation. That means that the benefit and burden of the contract can be assigned to ARIA without having to obtain a third-party agreement. It is an important provision that may be needed to make ARIA operational.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 8

Power to dissolve ARIA

[Kirsty Blackman]

I beg to move amendment 38, in clause 8, page 3, line 21, at end insert—

“unless they are made under subsection (7)”.

This amendment ensures that ARIA cannot use its significant resources to fund weapon development.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 37, in clause 8, page 4, line 4, at end insert—

“(7) The Secretary of State must immediately dissolve ARIA if it uses any of its resources to support weapon development.”.

This amendment ensures that ARIA cannot use its significant resources to fund weapon development.

[Kirsty Blackman]

It is important to consider the amendments together as one is consequential on the other. They would ensure that ARIA cannot use its significant resources to fund weapon development, and would provide the mechanism of the Secretary of State immediately dissolving ARIA were it to use any of its resources to support weapon development as an addition to the clause on dissolving ARIA. It is no secret that we in the SNP are not particularly keen to continue to be part of either the UK or the UK Parliament, but while we are contributing to ARIA and while some of our tax money is going to ARIA—while this money is being spent in our name—we do not want it to be spent on weapons or the development of weapons.

We have been very clear that we will not have nuclear weapons in an independent Scotland. We stand in opposition to them. For that reason, like many people in my party, I am a long-time member of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. The decisions the UK Government have taken on the renewal of those weapons and on spending money on nuclear weapons have been some of the very worst things that they have done in the name of the people of the UK. I do not want to sit on a Bill Committee that creates an organisation which has no set purpose, but which could entirely fund weapon development with the money that it is allocated. It could entirely fund research into technologies with which I fundamentally disagree.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

I completely understand the hon. Lady’s principled position on this issue. Does she not accept that, if the amendments were to pass, they would hamper the ability of the Secretary of State to activate clause 5 and direct ARIA towards working in our national security in a time of crisis? I fully accept that it would not be a good idea for ARIA to set its sights on developing new weapons, but we should not take its ability to do that away when we as nation may need it.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I thank the hon. Member for his characteristically sensible intervention. However, I feel so strongly about this that I think it is important that ARIA is excluded from doing that. There are other means that the UK can use to fund weapon development. I do not think ARIA should be one of them.

We are particularly concerned because of the lack of transparency and the issues that there have been around the use of weapons and the use of UK resources on weapons. We have said that we want the UK to immediately halt all military support and arms sales to regimes that are guilty of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. The UK Government have not done so. Our concerns are well founded, which is why we have tabled what is quite an extreme amendment in comparison with others we have seen.

This is a subject of much moral debate. We will not ever accept the use of lethal autonomous weapons. Our concern is that, as they are on the cutting edge of technology, ARIA may consider looking at those weapons. I do not want that to be done in the name of the people I represent; they certainly do not want it done in their name.

The Minister has told us about the memorandum of understanding that will be in place between BEIS and ARIA. We have already touched on the issues of ethical investments that ARIA may or may not make. If the Minister was willing to make a statement about the ethical nature of investments ARIA will make and the direction that may be put into that MOU—we do not have as much information as we would like on the MOU—that might give us some comfort on the direction that ARIA may take. The lack of a mission for ARIA means that it is open to the possibility that this situation could arise, and that is a big concern of ours.

[Amanda Solloway]

Amendments 37 and 38 challenge so-called dual-use research—research that is intended for benefit, but might be misapplied by a third party to do harm. The ways in which that could be done will not always be easy to predict, and given the possible benefits of the intended civilian application, it would not be right to close the door to any research that might fall into that category.

I assure the hon. Member that, alongside the Bill, my team is working hard to ensure that ARIA is set up with such risks at the front of people’s mind, including regarding how ARIA is equipped to perform due diligence on potential research partners to minimise risk. It would not be right to dissolve ARIA immediately if it had taken all necessary precautions to minimise the inappropriate use of its research, which would be the effect of the amendments.

Clause 5 will allow the Secretary of State to give directions to ARIA relating to the exercise of its functions when that is necessary or expedient in the interests of national security. That would apply, for example, if ARIA worked with a researcher in another jurisdiction on the development of a technology that could be used by another country for nefarious ends such as weapons development. In that event, the Secretary of State could direct ARIA to cease the contract or research. Under schedule 1, the Secretary of State is able to remove members from office on national security grounds.

I emphasise that while we have learned from DARPA in creating ARIA, ARIA differs from DARPA in several ways, principally because it is not set up with a focus on defence or weapons development. I urge the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I thank the Minister for her statement. I listened to it closely, and it did give some comfort about the possible direction of ARIA. Given what she said, I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division, but we will keep a close eye on what happens. When we scrutinise ARIA, we will examine whether it uses significant portions, or indeed any, of its resources to fund weapons development, especially in countries where there is concern about use for nefarious purposes—not that weapons can generally be used for a particularly good purposes—and with regard to lethal autonomous weapons. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Amanda Solloway]

Clause 8 allows the Secretary of State to make provision by regulation for the dissolution of ARIA

“ten years after the date on which this Act is passed.”

Before making such regulations, the Secretary of State will be required to consult ARIA and other persons he or she considers appropriate, who could include the recipients of ARIA funding or other experts in the field. That will ensure that those leading ARIA at the time will have the opportunity to contribute to the decision. As is set out in clause 11, regulations under clause 8 are subject to the affirmative procedure in each House of Parliament.

We recognise that ARIA is a new body that will take time to get up to scale and demonstrate success. Its exclusive focus on high-risk, programme-led research requires patience, so it should not be evaluated on short -term outcomes. The Commons Science and Technology Committee and the R&D sector at large have welcomed the long-term, patient approach that has been set out for ARIA, and the dissolution grace period is designed to take account of that. There is no obligation to exercise the dissolution power after 10 years, and the Government are, of course, optimistic that clause 8 will not be needed. However, we recognise that ARIA represents a new way of funding research so, as a matter of good administration, we have provided for a power to dissolve ARIA in the event that it is not successful.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Consequential amendments

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Amanda Solloway]

Clause 9 introduces consequential amendments to schedule 3, which we will go on to discuss. It has no other effect, and I hope that hon. Members agree with its necessity.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3

Consequential amendments

12:45

[Chi Onwurah]

I beg to move amendment 21, in schedule 3, page 13, line 37, leave out paragraph 11.

This amendment would remove ARIA’s exemption from the Public Contracts Regulations 2015.

Amendment 21, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends, is a key amendment that will ensure that ARIA merits and deserves the confidence of the public at this time of great debate about sleaze and cronyism. The amendment would remove ARIA’s exemption from the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. As drafted, paragraph 11 of schedule 3 excludes ARIA from the definition of a “contracting authority” under the 2015 regulations; as a consequence, ARIA is exempted from the usual public procurement rules. The Opposition do not understand why ARIA’s exemption from those rules is justified. Indeed, we are truly concerned that exempting it in this way opens a side door to sleaze in science.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct in her presentation: we fail to understand why ARIA is exempt from the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. The Government are embroiled in the PPE and VIP lane scandals. It has been exposed that companies were put into the VIP lane by mistake—for example, PestFix was awarded £32 million. For ARIA to be exempted from any regulation risks this exploding to a larger extent with £800 million of public funds.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and she is absolutely right. It would be a cause for concern at any time to exempt an agency of this importance and public funding from procurement rules, but it is particularly worrying when the Government are already embroiled in a cronyism and procurement scandal.

In support of the point that my hon. Friend made, Transparency International—a well-known and reputable organisation—found that, of 1,000 procurement contracts signed during the pandemic and totalling £18 billion of public money, one in five had one or more of the red flags commonly associated with corruption. Is that not a figure of which we should be absolutely ashamed? That has happened within the existing rules, and the Minister proposes to exempt ARIA from those rules.

In her letter to the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee on 2 March 2021, the Minister explained that the Bill will

“provide ARIA with an exemption from Public Contracts Regulations so that it can procure services, equipment and works relating to its research goals at speed, in a similar way to a private sector organisation.”

We have several concerns about that explanation. What assessment has the Minister made of the ways in which private sector organisations procure services? Has she compared this with the success or otherwise of Government procurement processes for PPE during the covid crisis? Is she saying that private sector procurement is more effective, more honest and fairer; or is it simply quicker?

What the exemption is for is also a concern. The Minister implies that it is for services, equipment and works relating to ARIA’s research goals. Is it for equipment, services and works, or is it actually for research? Will ARIA be considered to be procuring research? We had been led to understand that it would a funder of research and development, not a body conducting its own research in a lab, so what actual procurement needs will it have, beyond office space and office equipment? There are months and months before ARIA is operational, so what will it need to procure at speed, or is the intention to enable ARIA to procure research without oversight? What is the justification for not having appropriate oversight for its procurement of research?

We absolutely understand, and support, providing ARIA with additional flexibility in terms of its funding activity, but the benefit of exempting ARIA’s procurement of goods and services is not clear. We suggest that ARIA’s procurement needs are not different from those of other Government funding bodies. We hope that the Minister will explain why that is the case. In terms of safeguards, the Government are proposing that in a future framework agreement BEIS will require ARIA to appoint an independent internal auditor to report its procurement activities. It is therefore going to have an internal bureaucracy, as the Minister puts it, rather than be subject to the procurement rules that have been developed, debated and put in place over time.

Will that framework agreement set out procurement rules for ARIA? Otherwise, what is the auditing requiring compliance with? How can we audit if there are no rules to benchmark against? Without safeguards, we have significant concerns about the risk of sleaze. What is to prevent ARIA from buying its office equipment from a mate of the Secretary of State or of the chief executive? Can the Minister say which of the regulations she objects to? The Public Contracts Regulations 2015, for example, state that a person awarded a public contract must

“be linked to the subject-matter of the contract.”

Does she object to that? What will prevent ARIA from operating effectively?

In the evidence sessions, we heard a number of times, including from Professor Glover, that there is a need for openness and transparency. David Cleevely said:

“The more open you are about what you are doing, the less easy it is to hide the fact that you have let particular contracts and so on, so there ought to be a mechanism within the governance structure of the agency to do that.”—[Official Report, Advanced Research and Invention Public Bill Committee, 14 April 2021; c. 75, Q78.]

The Minister is removing such mechanisms as there already are. We heard that having rules and regulations in place was part of the culture of DARPA, on which this agency is supposedly based, with one of its directors, Dr Highnam, saying:

“Honour in public service is top of the list.”—[Official Report, Advanced Research and Invention Public Bill Committee, 14 April 2021; c. 39, Q32.]

[Stephen Metcalfe]

Did we not also hear from Director Highnam how DARPA benefits from other transaction authority and the flexibility that comes outside of the standard Government procurement process?

[Chi Onwurah]

We heard from Dr Highnam repeatedly of the importance of rules and regulations. He spoke specifically of a culture in which the process was not considered bureaucracy and a barrier but part of enabling DARPA to meet its obligations. I say to the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock, for whom I have a great deal of respect, that the flexibility that DARPA benefits from in being able to procure research is not outside the United States procurement requirements. Dr Highnam made it clear that they benefit from providing extraordinary results while being open and following the highest standards in public service.

I hope that the Minister will agree to leave ARIA with public procurement rules that provide some measure of trust, particularly in the middle of the current cronyism scandal.

[Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.

If procurement rules for the traditional R&D granting used by UKRI do not apply, we need to understand that ARIA, like DARPA, will work differently. There will be some granting, but others will be commissioned and contracted to conduct research. If ARIA often procures R&D services, they could be within the scope of procurement regulations, so it is important to have the exemption. My hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock made a good point when he referenced the evidence that DARPA deputy director Dr Highnam gave last Wednesday about how DARPA benefits from other transaction authority and has flexibility outside the standard Government-contracting standards. Those flexibilities exist in the US and it is important that ARIA has a similar flexibility.

The exemption places freedom in the hands of the leaders and programme managers. In that model, those programme managers will be recruited to run ARIA as an independent body. ARIA’s procurement will be at arm’s length from Government and Ministers.

Importantly, in paragraph (14) to schedule 1, the Government have made a commitment to ensure that ARIA internally audits its procurement activities. The upfront flexibility that the exemption affords will be balanced by reporting at a later point. It is clear that the need for agility does not negate ARIA’s accountability.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I will briefly highlight our view of amendments 21 and 22. We are considering perhaps some of the daftest things that the UK Government have proposed in my short time in the House. I cannot quite believe that we are in a situation whereby public contracts and freedom of information are simply brushed to one side by a Government. I am interested by the argument that we should follow DARPA’s example in procurement practices, but not when it comes to having a mission. The Government seem to have picked the worse of the two options, and that is bizarre.

The shadow Minister rightly covered the matter in detail. Last week, one of the expert witnesses said that transparency fosters trust. Why would any Government not want the trust of Parliament and the people?

[Amanda Solloway]

The amendment would omit the extension of obligations on contracting authorities for the purposes of public contracts regulation that the Bill affords ARIA. I will take the opportunity to explain to hon. Members why the extension is so important.

I will make three points. First, ARIA is expected to commission and contract others to conduct research in pursuit of its ambitious goals. ARIA will often be procuring those services, and that commissioning and contracting is a fundamentally different way of funding R&D from traditional grant-making, where procurement rules do not apply.

12:59

Secondly, that way of funding research is core to DARPA’s approach, the successful US model we have learned from in designing ARIA. There has been some confusion on that point. As Dr Peter Highnam made clear in his evidence to the Committee, DARPA benefits from what he described as “other transaction authority”, which offers flexibility outside standard US Government contracting standards. For ARIA to take the innovative new funding approach that is so fundamental to its objectives, I believe that it will benefit from similar flexibilities here. For ARIA, the public procurement rules could prevent a critical investment being made at speed or at all. We will therefore provide that exemption so that ARIA may procure services, equipment and works relating to its research goals at speed, in a similar way to a private sector organisation.

Finally, there has been some discussion in Committee about trust in Government. I will therefore stress that that exemption places freedom into the hands of ARIA and the leaders and programme managers who will be recruited to run it as an independent body. That independence, as I have been clear throughout, is essential.

[Stephen Flynn]

I am very much in favour of freedom, for want of a better phrase, but does the Minister not understand the concerns that the public will have about transparency on such a key amount of public money? That is something the Government have an awful track record on at this moment in time. Does she not understand the public’s view?

[Amanda Solloway]

I make reference to all the methods that we have in place to ensure that we are transparent in the running of ARIA. As I have been clear about throughout, independence is an essential feature of ARIA. Its procurement will therefore be at arm’s length from Government and Ministers. I hope that this debate has demonstrated the necessity of such an arrangement and that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central will withdraw her amendment.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the Minister for her response, but I do not feel reassured and I do not think that the public will feel reassured. I will therefore press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 15

Ayes: 6

---

Labour: 4
Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 8

---

Conservative: 8

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Michael Tomlinson.)

13:03

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill (Sixth sitting)

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Judith Cummins, †Mr Philip Hollobone, Esther McVey, Derek Twigg

† Baker, Duncan (North Norfolk) (Con)

† Bell, Aaron (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)

† Blackman, Kirsty (Aberdeen North) (SNP)

Butler, Dawn (Brent Central) (Lab)

† Crosbie, Virginia (Ynys Môn) (Con)

† Fletcher, Mark (Bolsover) (Con)

† Flynn, Stephen (Aberdeen South) (SNP)

† Furniss, Gill (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)

Hunt, Jane (Loughborough) (Con)

† Mayhew, Jerome (Broadland) (Con)

† Metcalfe, Stephen (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)

† Onwurah, Chi (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)

Owen, Sarah (Luton North) (Lab)

† Richardson, Angela (Guildford) (Con)

† Solloway, Amanda (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy)

† Tomlinson, Michael (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury)

† Zeichner, Daniel (Cambridge) (Lab)

Sarah Ioannou, Seb Newman, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Thursday 22 April 2021

(Afternoon)

[Mr Philip Hollobone in the Chair]

Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill

14:00

Schedule 3

Consequential amendments

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 22, in schedule 3, page 14, line 3, at end insert—

“Freedom of Information Act 2000

(12) In Part VI of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“Other public bodies and offices: general”), at the appropriate place insert “The Advanced Research and Invention Agency”.”.

This amendment would make ARIA subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hollobone. Amendment 22 is critical and very simple. It would make the Advanced Research and Invention Agency subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

The amendment forms part of a sequence of amendments that we have tabled, which seek to deliver greater oversight of ARIA and greater accountability, in order to increase public confidence, particularly at this time when we are in the midst of a cronyism scandal. We do not believe that ARIA’s blanket exemption from the Freedom of Information Act regime can be justified.

I make the point that £800 million of public money will be spent by ARIA. It is a new agency whose aims and ambitions we all support, but public trust will be vital to its long-term success. In our evidence sessions, we heard from Government witnesses such as Professor Philip Bond. Dominic Cummings, the self-proclaimed architect of ARIA, gave similar evidence to the Science and Technology Committee, which celebrated trusting the leaders of ARIA with £800 million of taxpayers’ money and no purpose. The Labour party believe that this could be a side door to sleaze in science.

We do not want to bureaucratise ARIA. We acknowledge that a hands-off approach is integral to its success. We simply want ARIA to be accountable to the public via the Freedom of Information Act.

On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme stated that,

“UK Research and Innovation receives about 300 FOI requests a year”.—[Official Report, 23 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 830.]

I have since received an answer from the Science Minister to a parliamentary question, which states that, for example, UK Research and Innovation received 371 freedom of information requests in 2020 and has answered 100 in the first three months of 2021. I asked about the costs to UKRI of complying with those requests, but it does not keep track of costs, which implies that they are not significant.

ARIA will be spending between 1% and 2% of the funding that UKRI is spending. If UKRI receives about 300 requests per year, we might calculate, say, that if freedom of information requests were related to the amount of public money being spent—a reasonable approximation—ARIA might receive between three and six freedom of information requests per year. I ask the Committee: would six freedom of information requests per year be a bureaucratic burden on ARIA, as the small and agile organisation we want it to be?

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

rose—

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

rose—

[Chi Onwurah]

I give way to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme.

[Aaron Bell]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and for welcoming me back to the Committee by mentioning me in her first paragraph. I was sorry to miss this morning’s sitting, but I was paired with an Opposition Member. I admire her mathematics, but given the interest in ARIA and the cutting-edge research that it will undertake, I do not think that scaling back in the manner she did and suggesting that it might receive only three to six requests a month is likely. As she knows, UKRI has a team of people to deal with freedom of information requests. We should consider carefully whether we want to put such a burden on ARIA, because we want it to be nimble and lean. I am afraid that I do not believe the quantum of money can be scaled to the number of FOI requests. I think ARIA would get an awful lot, given the research we want it to undertake.

[Chi Onwurah]

Will the intervention from the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock be on a similar point? I imagine it will.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

It was going to be on exactly the same point. I could not have put it better myself.

[Chi Onwurah]

My respect for the hon. Member only increases because he does not wish to repeat what somebody else has said. That is not always the case in this House, as we know. I welcome the intervention from the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, and I would welcome a long discussion on probability, mathematics and statistics, but I can see that my Whip might not be entirely happy with that, so let me confine myself to this. I was not claiming that the estimate was rigorous. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme suggested that because there will be more interest in ARIA, it will receive more Freedom of Information Act requests. That might be true for the first two or three years, but I do not think that level of interest would be maintained, even if it received more requests proportionately.

I mentioned funding because that is what enables activity, and freedom of information requests relate to that activity. Therefore, even if we doubled the greatest estimate to, say, 12, what price does the Committee think should not be paid for accountability and freedom of information? What would be too much? I was not here in Parliament for the expenses scandal, but we saw the impact that had on public confidence as we now see the cronyism scandals and their impact on public confidence and trusted institutions. Freedom of information and transparency is an essential part of that.

The Campaign for Freedom of Information reports that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, with its significantly higher budget, was subject to just 48 requests in 2019. During the evidence sessions, we heard that UKRI was happy to deal with FOI requests, because it viewed them as an important aspect of spending public money. We also heard—this was telling—that the Royal Society of Edinburgh, although it is not subject to FOI, behaves as if it is and responds to requests because it views them as an important aspect of transparency. Regardless of whether the Minister accepts the amendment—I very much hope that she will—ARIA should echo the Royal Society of Edinburgh’s approach.

We heard in evidence from DARPA that it believed that rather than hindering the agency, the transparency offered by FOI requests was useful in building public trust in its work. In fact, DARPA’s deputy director stated that the level of oversight that it is subject to is “important to its success”. Other high-risk, high-reward agencies such as the Federal Agency for Disruptive Innovation in Germany, Vinnova in Sweden and the French National Centre for Scientific Research are all subject to the freedom of information requirements of their respective countries. What makes ARIA so different?

The protection of sensitive information cannot be used as justification for a blanket exemption, as the Freedom of Information Act 2000 already provides exemptions where disclosure would prejudice research or commercial interests, or cause a breach of confidentiality. In their initial response to the Secretary of State’s announcement of ARIA’s FOI exemption, NESTA said:

“Radical openness and honesty is needed or distrust will undermine it. The public will expect to know what’s happening with public money”—

I think we can very much see that now—

“and greater risk requires transparency and evaluation in order to determine what works.”

The Campaign for Freedom of Information said that ARIA

“will spend hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ money on high risk projects but the government apparently wants it to be less accountable to the public than parish councils, which are subject to FOI.”

In the evidence session, Tabitha Goldstaub said that

“at Google’s moonshot factory, X…they started in secret and everything felt so appealing, to protect people from any feeling of failure, but what they learned is that there are so many other much better ways than secrecy to incentivise people and to give them the freedom to fail. Actually, allowing for more transparency builds much more trust and encourages more collaboration and, therefore, better breakthroughs.”––[Official Report, Advanced Research and Invention Agency Public Bill Committee, 14 April 2021; c. 57, Q55.]

On what we are trying to achieve with this agency, the Minister has mentioned her concerns about bureaucracy a few times, but I think we as legislators have to decide whether we believe that rules and regulations are simply mere bureaucracy to be thrown out whenever possible, or whether we believe that they can contribute both to the effectiveness of an agency and to the contract that we in Parliament have with the public to take their hard-earned taxpayers’ money and spend it as best we can to encourage and enable growth, prosperity, and a national health service—all things from which the public benefit. We cannot do that in secret; we have to do it publicly.

I really urge the Minister to accept the amendment. She knows that the exemption has come in for much criticism and that the controversy around it will continue to mar the progress of the agency. I urge her to listen to the siren voices of concern and to accept the amendment to remove ARIA’s exemption from the Freedom of Information Act.

[Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I would like to speak briefly to amendment 22. In the past week, we have discussed the concerns about exempting ARIA from FOI requests, and we have heard evidence about the potential burden of administration. UKRI told us that it has a team of staff purely to deal with the 300-plus FOI requests that it receives annually. In addition, Professor Dame Ottoline Leyser said that although UKRI is happy to be able to respond to FOI requests,

“there is a judgment call about the burden of administration”.––[Official Report, Advanced Research and Invention Agency Public Bill Committee, 14 April 2021; c. 9, Q4.]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme so eloquently put it—echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock—with unique freedoms and independence to enable transformational research, ARIA will inevitably receive a number of FOI requests that is disproportionate to its size.

Our vision for ARIA is that it should be lean and agile. Do we really want it encumbered by that level of administrative burden? Do we want ARIA’s brilliant programme managers to be stifled by bureaucratic paperwork?

We have also heard about whether ARIA will deliver the game-changing R&D that we want if it is subject to FOI. It was Tony Blair who gave us the Freedom of Information Act and it was he who subsequently described it as

“utterly undermining of sensible Government.”

To use his words:

“If you are trying to take a difficult decision and you're weighing up the pros and cons, you have frank conversations...and if those conversations then are put out in a published form that afterwards are liable to be highlighted in particular ways, you are going to be very cautious.”

Professor Philip Bond put this view into an R&D context in his discussions with us last week. He said that

“if you are asking people to go out on a limb to really push the envelope, I would assert that there is an argument, which has some validity, that you make it psychologically much easier for them if they do not feel that they are under a microscope.” ––[Official Report, Advanced Research and Invention Agency Public Bill Committee, 14 April 2021; c. 29.]

Mr Blair and Professor Bond perfectly highlight the fundamental reason why ARIA should be free from FOI. The last thing that our scientists need when they are looking for the next internet is to be held back by caution.

14:15

The Bill already contains very strong statutory commitments to its transparency. There will be an annual report laid before Parliament. Its accounts and spending will be published. There will be non-legislative mechanisms set out in a framework document. There will be a thorough and transparent selection process to ensure that it is led by respected individuals who uphold public honour. There will also be access to FOI requests on ARIA via the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

For all these reasons, I believe that there is no need for ARIA to be subject to an FOI regime that will stifle creativity and create unnecessary bureaucracy.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I want to make a couple of comments. We have talked a lot about transparency and the need for it, but mostly in the context of the scrutiny that we as parliamentarians will levy on ARIA. It is really important that we have transparency so that the public and journalists can scrutinise it. We are not always fans of some of the journalism that happens, but I hope we are all agreed that journalism plays a hugely important role and that journalists have no other route to access the information that they should have on ARIA in order to bring things to the public’s attention.

We discussed also the tolerance for failure that exists in the UK, and how it might differ from tolerance for failure in the US. I suggest that having more public transparency about that and more openness about the processes in ARIA would ensure that the public are more on board with the organisation’s ability to fail. The organisation should have the ability to fail, but if we do not know that that is happening, because we have not been able to scrutinise it, and that suddenly comes out in the end-of-year annual report, it will be even more of a shock for the public than if they had heard about it along the way.

On the topic of scrutinising the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, it is interesting to consider whether BEIS will provide us with responses if we send it written questions on the subject of ARIA. That would be helpful to know. If there is not a normal mechanism for us or journalists to scrutinise this through FOI, it would be helpful to have some comfort that written questions relating to ARIA will be answered, with as much detail as the Minister feels can be given at that time.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Hollobone, to serve with you in the Chair for the second time this week.

This has been a really interesting discussion, because it has demonstrated two very different views of how the world might operate. I am sorry to hear the Government’s view on this. When they are in Opposition, they might find that they are quite keen on freedom of information. All Governments, of course, are keen not to be subject to scrutiny in this way. There is a fundamental point about the modern world now, even more than 10 or 20 years ago. Perhaps it is because of the kind of constituency I represent, but I have a lot of people who are interested in what is going on and they expect, as citizens and taxpayers, to be able to ask questions, particularly where public money is being spent.

Let me give two very quick examples. Artificial intelligence is the kind of issue that may well be dealt with by ARIA. It is hugely controversial. Just a couple of years ago, many of my constituents, on the way home from King’s Cross, found that they had been subject to facial recognition technology. How did they find out about that? Ultimately, it was through freedom of information. It is always the case that the people who have the knowledge, the power and the control do not want to share it with others. That is not a good way of maintaining public trust. Just this morning, I found myself at the Dispatch Box challenging a Minister because expert advice on bee-killing pesticides had been revealed not through parliamentary questions or asking or writing letters, but through Friends of the Earth’s freedom of information requests. I understand why the Government do not want that information out there, but it should be out there, and ARIA should be in the same place. We should have confidence in the work being done, however close to the edge it is. Ultimately, it is about maintaining public trust. We are entering a hugely complicated world, in terms of science and technology. We will not keep the public with us by hiding and not acceding to freedom of information requests.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)]

The Government are committed to good governance and transparency, and I believe that the Bill in its current form embeds that within ARIA. With regard to amendment 22, we have carefully considered the case for and against subjecting ARIA to the Freedom of Information Act. The intention is for ARIA to have a streamlined operating structure, with decision makers who can solely focus on ARIA’s research goals. We have spoken and heard a lot about culture and how important that is to facilitating an environment that pursues transformational research.

In turn, we have thought carefully about guaranteeing accountability and transparency in the most appropriate way. There are many different mechanisms to achieve this, and I cannot accept the claims that no such oversight exists for ARIA. To reiterate: the Bill requires ARIA to submit an annual report and statement of accounts, which will be laid before Parliament; ARIA will be audited by the National Audit Office and subject to value-for-money assessments; ARIA will interact with Select Committees in the usual way; and we will draw up a framework document detailing ARIA’s relationship with BEIS and further reporting requirements, such as details of what will be published in the annual report. Together, these provisions are rigorous and proportionate and will ensure that the research community, MPs, peers and taxpayers are informed of ARIA’s activities and where it spends its money.

By not subjecting ARIA to the Freedom of Information Act, ARIA’s leadership and scientists will be free to find and fund the most cutting-edge research in the UK and the world, and to maintain the UK’s competitive advantage as a science superpower. While there are exemptions to freedom of information requests, they must still be processed, and that administration is likely to run contrary to the lean and agile operation of ARIA. To be clear, other bodies subject to the Freedom of Information Act, such as universities and Government Departments, including BEIS, will still process requests regarding their activities with ARIA in the usual way. I hope that makes it clear that this is not about reducing transparency; it is about making ARIA streamlined. I hope that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central understands why I cannot accept the amendment.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank those Members who have taken part in the debate, which highlights, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge said, a real difference between us and Government Members. I totally understand why Government Members do not want Government conversations to be known at the moment—releases of those on WhatsApp have not been in their interest. However, we strongly believe that freedom of information is a duty of public bodies, so I will press the amendment to a Division.

Division 16

Ayes: 5

---

Labour: 3
Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 9

---

Conservative: 9

Question proposed, That the schedule be the Third schedule to the Bill.

[Amanda Solloway]

Schedule 3 contains consequential amendments. There are a number of significant points to highlight, and a number of standard consequential amendments and obligations, which I will turn to first. The schedule has the effect of ensuring that records produced by ARIA should be treated as public records; subjecting ARIA to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the body responsible for investigating the administrative actions of public authorities; and disqualifying members of ARIA from membership of the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Those are all standard provisions.

Schedule 3 includes amendments to the relevant devolution Acts, with the effect of reserving ARIA. That will bring it into line with the other major public R&D funding institutions under the UKRI umbrella, including the most recently created Innovate UK. That will guarantee that, across the United Kingdom, ARIA can operate with minimal bureaucracy and without the possibility of unequal obligations or requirements on its activities in different nations. It is important to be clear that the devolved Administrations will continue to be able to fund research to the same extent that they can do now. The specific reservation of ARIA does not prevent the Welsh Government or the Scottish Government from providing additional support for advanced research in future.

The other significant provision in schedule 3 is the exemption of ARIA from the obligations on a contracting authority, for the purpose of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. We have discussed that and I will not return to it. The provisions here are important for the effective operation of ARIA, and I commend them to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 3 accordingly agreed to.

Clause 10

Power to make consequential provision

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Amanda Solloway]

Clause 10 contains a power for the Secretary of State to make consequential provision. There are three points I would like to make on this clause. First, the power is only exercisable in consequence of the provisions of what will be the ARIA Act, or regulations made under clause 8, which we have already discussed. That represents a significant narrowing of the scope of the power. Secondly, I emphasise that it is a standard provision that allows issues that might emerge in future to be straightforwardly addressed. There is a comparable power in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. Thirdly, as set out in clause 11, which we will turn to next, any regulations made under that power that amend, repeal or revoke any provision of primary legislation or retained direct principal EU legislation will be subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure. That means that Parliament will have a say on any use of that power.

Finally, I would like to illustrate why the power is needed. If ARIA were to be dissolved in future through regulations made under clause 8, the references to ARIA inserted in other legislation would remain, and clause 1 of the Act—stating that ARIA was established—would be left hanging. In that situation, the power could be used to repeal the relevant clauses of the ARIA Act and remove references to ARIA elsewhere, which would be necessary and important to tidy the statute book and avoid confusion and ambiguity. I hope that demonstrates the importance of the power being taken.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

Regulations

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

15:20

[Amanda Solloway]

Clause 11 concerns the regulation-making powers in the Bill, which are limited. The principal point of interest is the parliamentary procedure that each of these delegated powers will be subject to. Subsection (4) sets out that regulations made under clause 8 to dissolve ARIA and any regulations under clause 10 that amend, repeal or revoke any provision of primary legislation or retained direct principal EU legislation will be subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure. These are the most substantial powers, so I consider that it is right that Parliament has a say over how they are exercised.

With the exception of regulations made under clause 14 concerning commencement, any other regulations made under the ARIA Bill will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. These are predominantly concerned with operational and procedural details, so again I consider that the negative resolution procedure is appropriate in this case, and I hope the Committee agrees.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Interpretation

[Chi Onwurah]

I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 12, page 5, line 10, after “social sciences” insert “and the humanities”.

This amendment would modify the definitions of scientific knowledge and scientific research to encompass the humanities.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 24, in clause 12, page 5, line 13, after “social sciences” insert “and the humanities”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 23.

[Chi Onwurah]

We are moving through this Bill at speed, so it would be good to take a few moments to think about the role of the humanities. These amendments modify the definition of scientific knowledge and scientific research to encompass the humanities.

It is incumbent on us, particularly during a pandemic when we are missing so many of the arts and other aspects of culture, to recognise the very important role that the humanities play, not only in our mental and social wellbeing but in scientific research, and particularly in our understanding of the world around us. We believe that science can be the engine of progress for our society, and it needs to be for and by everyone. Expanding the scope of ARIA’s research to include the humanities can provide greater returns for society.

This also speaks to the Government’s so-called levelling-up agenda. As part of that, they must appreciate the important role that social sciences and the humanities play in helping us understand and solve many of the issues faced in all our communities across our United Kingdom. ARIA presents us with an opportunity to drive innovation across the country, but it must be done in the right way. Currently, the Bill fails to adequately factor in the importance of all forms of research.

The statement of policy intent makes no reference to the social sciences. The examples of areas that may be funded by ARIA are AI, quantum computing and robotics. They are very important, but we also need answers from the Government on how they envisage that ARIA’s social science funding will work.

The recent report into race and ethnic disparities, commissioned by the Prime Minister, has been roundly condemned—indeed, trounced—for its lack of coherent or credible research. It has been criticised by historians, social scientists and academics from across our country. That illustrates very well how important it is that we have strengths in humanities and social science research, and that the Government and the Prime Minister recognise that. The role that institutional racism and prejudice play in the lives of so many in this country is worthy of credible research. Addressing the many inequalities that so many people still face is surely a worthy challenge—a worthy moonshot—that ARIA should consider.

Mariana Mazzucato, a leading academic and economist of mission-oriented research, said that all science should address social inequality. We heard from Felicity Burch that:

“Clearly defining the mission of what ARIA is trying to achieve when we get the team in place, making sure that it is something that excites people, having a clear market, and also solving national and international social problems will help encourage really bright, brilliant people to get involved.”––[Official Report, Advanced Research and Invention Agency Public Bill Committee, 14 April 2021; c. 68, Q66.]

With our two amendments, we wish to ensure that the humanities are considered part of ARIA’s remit.

[Amanda Solloway]

I will speak to amendments 23 and 24 together. ARIA is unashamedly focused on achieving transformational breakthroughs in the sciences, and this is reflected in the definition set out in clause 12. I say to the hon. Member that scientific research and scientific knowledge are broadly defined to include the social sciences. I do not believe it is helpful for ARIA to extend the interpretation of “sciences” to include humanities. There are other funders that do a fantastic job at supporting the humanities, including the Arts and Humanities Research Council, but that is not the Government’s intention for ARIA. I hope the hon. Member will withdraw the amendments.

[Chi Onwurah]

I am disappointed in the Minister’s response, but I will not push the amendments to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 12, page 5, line 13, at end insert—

““Invention” means the process by which ideas are converted into value in the form of new and improved products, services and approaches.”

This amendment would establish the meaning of “invention” as referred to in the title and functions of ARIA.

The amendment is about defining “invention.” Before the sharp-eyed hon. Member for North Norfolk points out that, at the start of these proceedings, I tried to take the word “invention” out of the title, I repeat my earlier observation that we are quite prescient on this side of the House. I had rather anticipated that, despite all the fantastic strength of our arguments, Government Members were not necessarily persuaded, strangely enough.

[Aaron Bell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point, which I considered making as well. Given his remarks on Tuesday and his obvious love for the operatic nature of the Bill, it seems he might have considered changing the name of ARIA to the Advanced Research and Insulation Agency.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I would certainly like to do that, because we have a Government who have been unable to insulate our homes for a decade, but never mind. There are many musical references that could be made, including to The Mothers of Invention, with whom I grew up, but I suspect their notion of invention is rather different from the Government’s.

There is a serious point here, and it is a theme to which I return. We really think there is a problem with not having a clear definition. It seems to us that there are two very different approaches. The Government’s view is basically that our structure of accountability, and the way we deal with public money, is a problem for innovation. It is a difficulty that should be got rid of. I am afraid it goes back to the Dominic Cummings question, because that is his view of the world too. We take a very different view. Far from thinking that it is a problem, we think it is actually part of creating an innovation landscape—a community of people who are working towards shared goals.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

I, too, was very tempted to make an intervention about the change in name, but I scanned through the entire Bill and noticed that there was one other mention of the word “invention” in the body of the text, so we were not able to move on that. But words have natural and ordinary meanings. The hon. Gentleman would perhaps refer to the “Cambridge Dictionary”, which defines “invention” as

“a product or a way of doing something which has never been made or never existed before”.

What is wrong with relying on the “Cambridge Dictionary” definition?

[Daniel Zeichner]

Absolutely right, and I have no objection to ever relying on anything that has been developed in Cambridge through a collegiate, collaborative approach of people working together. I was just about to say that we would be very happy to negotiate a definition of “invention”—I am very happy to take that one. We are just trying to help the Government to provide some clarity in the Bill. I suspect the Minister will not be tempted to take up the offer.

I will conclude by mentioning the public money point, which my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central referenced. I can barely believe that I am saying this to Conservative Members, because I have been lectured many times over the years in various places about how it is taxpayers’ money and every penny needs to be spent carefully. It is absolutely right and proper that that should be done—£800 million is at least £10 per person. I suspect that other Members are knocking on doors at the moment and having a conversation with people, asking them how they are going to vote. I just wonder how many Members over the next week or two would like to end the conversation by saying, “Can I have a tenner, please?” When people ask, “What for?”, they offer the back of an envelope and say, “I don’t really know—I’ve no idea—but it might produce something wonderful.” And then they look down the list and find six others in the household, so they up it to £60. I do not think so. I think the public are not going to be convinced about this. Maybe—just maybe—a wonderful innovation will come through this, but I fear that, in years ahead, we will find that we are back discussing this again and will be putting in some of the checks and balances that are actually required.

[Amanda Solloway]

I thank the hon. Member for the suggestion and I understand the sentiment. It is incredibly important that ARIA’s transformational ideas can lead to value creation. However, it is not necessary to use legislation to define words that already have a common meaning, as I believe “invention” does. I also emphasise that other definitions in clause 12 of the Bill—of “scientific knowledge” and “scientific research”—mirror existing provision in the Science and Technology Act 1965, so there is a precedent for the approach in that specific case. “Invention”, in contrast, is a commonly used concept that appears through the Patents Act 1977, and the term “invention” is not subject to a specific definition in that Act. I strongly suggest that we rely on the commonly understood meaning of “invention”, which is “the process of creating something that has never been made before”, and that that definition is sufficient, and I encourage him to withdraw the amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I do not need to detain the Committee further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Amanda Solloway]

Clause 12 contains further information on the interpretation of terms used in the Bill. It is a straightforward, technical matter and I hope that it is helpful in illuminating some of the clauses previously discussed.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

Extent

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Amanda Solloway]

Clause 13 details the extent of the Bill, which is UK-wide. Research is a collaborative endeavour, and working right across the United Kingdom, as other public research funders do, will be essential for ARIA in forging a wide range of productive partnerships. I hope hon. Members agree that this arrangement is beneficial for research organisations everywhere.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

Commencement

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Amanda Solloway]

Clause 14 contains standard provision for the commencement of the ARIA Act following Royal Assent. It contains a power for the Secretary of State to make commencement regulations. There is a limited number of provisions that for practical reasons will immediately come into force. That includes the power to make consequential provision in clause 10 so that it could, if needed, be used immediately after Royal Assent to address any issues that emerged. I am sure that the Committee will agree that the clause is standard.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

00:01

Clause 15

Short title

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Amanda Solloway]

This clause provides the short title of the Bill. ARIA’s name has already been discussed at the very start of proceedings, and I do not think we need revisit that discussion here.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Protection of independence of ARIA

“In exercising functions in respect of ARIA, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to protect its independence.”—(Chi Onwurah.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to have regard for the need to protect ARIA’s independence when exercising functions under the Bill, including with respect to appointments.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Chi Onwurah]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The entire debate has been extremely exciting, and I know we are all reluctant to bring it to a close, but the new clause, which I will discuss briefly, is in keeping with all our constructive amendments that we have considered in our debate on ARIA. The new clause would improve the Bill and protect the spirit and goals of ARIA. Indeed, it would clarify them in places.

The new clause would ensure that when exercising functions in respect of ARIA, the Secretary of State must have regard to the protection of its independence. Members on the Government and Opposition Benches have talked about the importance of ARIA’s independence and referred to the challenges to the relationship between business and Government that we see now in the many conflicts of interest and concerns that have been raised about sleaze and cronyism that are now being considered in Parliament and in Committees.

We feel it is important to set out that ARIA is independent and can act with operational independence. Indeed, the Minister has repeatedly told the Committee that she wants ARIA to act with operational independence. “Extreme freedom” was Dominic Cummings’ clarion call in his evidence to the Science and Technology Committee.

The new clause would ensure that the Secretary of State had regard to ARIA’s independence when exercising all functions under the Bill, such as his power of appointment. For example, appointing a major Conservative party donor or a Conservative peer to the board of ARIA would clearly have a damaging effect on ARIA’s independence and how that independence was perceived by the scientific community.

I hesitate to predict what the Minister will say, but I suspect that she will not look favourably on this amendment and she may say that the ministerial code already requires Ministers to behave in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety and ensures that no conflicts of interest arise. In response to that, I would say that we can clearly see the repeated undermining of the code by Ministers in this Government and—critically—the current vacancy for the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on Ministers’ interests.

I also remind the Committee that the Government themselves introduced a very similar amendment to the Environment Bill—new clause 17—that imposes the same obligation on the Government in exercising functions under that Bill in relation to the Office for Environmental Protection. If such a measure is appropriate for the Environment Bill, why not for this Bill? For as long as we have this cloud of sleaze allegations hanging over this Government, we must ensure that we are crystal clear when it comes to key issues such as independence, propriety, conflicts of interest, and so on.

In addition, I will just briefly quote some witnesses who gave evidence. Tabitha Goldstaub, for example, said that

“ARIA has to be independent”.––[Official Report, Advanced Research and Invention Agency Public Bill Committee, 14 April 2021; c. 56, Q54.]

Dr Dugan said:

“That independence of decision making and the crafting of those programmes in that spirit are coupled, and that is part of the reason why the agency”—

that is, the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency in the US—

“has been so successful over years.”––[Official Report, Advanced Research and Invention Agency Public Bill Committee, 14 April 2021; c. 47, Q43.]

And I will close by quoting Professor Glover, who said:

“I would argue that there is huge value in that”—

“that” being the independence of ARIA, and that:

“Obviously, the funding is coming from Government, but by giving it freedom from Government you might also be giving it the freedom to fail in many ways, and that is exceptionally important. If it is seen as very close to Government—whichever Government is in power—it potentially becomes a bit like a political football, either in what is being funded or in the direction suggested for where ARIA funding should go.”––[Official Report, Advanced Research and Invention Agency Public Bill Committee, 14 April 2021; c. 55, Q54.]

I think that all Members of the Committee will agree that we do not wish ARIA to become a political football; we certainly want it to avoid the controversy that has affected football itself in the last few days. We want its independence to be crystal clear. We do not want it to be subject to, or tainted by, any of the allegations of sleaze or cronyism, or the corrupting influence of there being too close a relationship between business and Government. By accepting this amendment, the Committee will send a clear message in that regard.

[Amanda Solloway]

New clause 1 concerns ARIA’s independence, which is at the core of our policy aims here, and the Bill has been drafted to set ARIA as free from ministerial interference as possible. ARIA will set its own research programmes, recruit freely at the executive and programme manager level, and make decisions on what programmes to start and finish without recourse to Ministers.

I observe a contradiction in moving this new clause to protect ARIA’s independence to be discussed alongside a series of amendments which would take powers away from ARIA and give them to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State deliberately has limited powers and the Bill strikes the right balance between providing ARIA with the independence to operate freely, which we believe is critical to its success, and sufficient Government oversight to protect the use of public funds, for example, the right to remove non-executive members or to intervene where necessary or expedient on national security grounds, or the Secretary of State’s reserve power to introduce procedure in law affecting conflicts of interest, a power that is not found in the Bill but which creates other statutory corporations, such as UKRI. These measures represent appropriate protections, rather than controls, affording ARIA greater freedoms and independence than those of typical arm’s length bodies.

Without real freedoms, there is a danger that ARIA will get pulled closer by Ministers over time, and will become an arm’s length body like any other. I therefore do not think the new clause is needed.

[Chi Onwurah]

There is not a contradiction between wanting to establish ARIA’s independence while also ensuring the same levels of scrutiny. For us they are two sides of the same coin. As this is our last proposed amendment, I want to press the new clause to a Division.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 2

Carbon costs

“ARIA must—

(a) have regard to the carbon costs of decisions it makes; and

(b) operate with net zero carbon costs.”—(Stephen Flynn.)

This new clause is intended to ensure that ARIA has regard to the carbon costs of its decisions, and runs with net zero carbon costs.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[The Chair]

We now go to Aberdeen South to move new clause 2.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

We are indeed going to the better side of Aberdeen, although I should be very careful on my way home, because my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North and I are both on the same flight later.

I do not want to go over the arguments that we had earlier in the week. I think we had quite enough on net zero and climate change. We do of course still hold the view that that should be the abiding mission of ARIA itself. Given that the Bill does not make any provision for what we are suggesting in the new clause, it should be brought forward at this moment in time. I hope the Minister will be able to allay my concerns with her remarks.

[Amanda Solloway]

We discussed climate change extensively on Tuesday. I want to put it on the record that I agree with the hon. Members who raised the urgency and importance of tackling that issue. As I am sure the hon. Member for Aberdeen South is aware, however, the clause would be a very unusual provision for a statutory corporation. I also want to emphasise that ambitious legislative action has already been taken by the Government in this regard, with our strong statutory commitment to net zero making the UK the first major economy in the world to do that.

As I have said before, achieving the legislative commitment to net zero remains one of the Government’s top priorities, as demonstrated by the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan. I know that ambition is shared by colleagues across this place. I therefore recognise why the clause has been brought forward today. I would, however, caution against placing an immediate obligation on ARIA that is out of step with the wider 2050 timescale for reaching net zero.

ARIA is also likely to be a very small organisation with a small footprint. I also want to emphasise that ARIA will be subject to the Environmental Information Regulations, which require public authorities such as ARIA to make environmental information available. This would likely include data relating to carbon costs. We have discussed the importance of giving ARIA freedom and independence and space to establish itself, and ultimately I do not think that imposing that immediate statutory obligation is the right way to achieve the climate objectives that it speaks to, or to ensure the success of ARIA.

[Stephen Flynn]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

14:59

New Clause 3

Presentation of funding in Estimates

‘(none) ARIA’s funding must be presented as a discrete item in the Supply Estimate presented to Parliament by HM Government. —(Kirsty Blackman.)

This new clause is intended to ensure that in the Estimates process, spending on ARIA is transparent and able to be scrutinised.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[The Chair]

The new clause is in the name of the SNP, and we go this time to Aberdeen North.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Aberdeen North is by far the best part of Aberdeen, Mr Hollobone.

I know that new clause 3 is the most exciting thing, and that the Committee has been waiting for it the whole time. It is the key moment in our discussions. I jest—but it is important. The past few years saw the advent of English votes for English laws in Parliament, and we were told during its development that even though Scottish MPs were being written out of having a say on England-only legislation, we would still have a say on Barnett consequentials, because we would be able to vote during the estimates process.

We have made our issues with that process clear. Despite good changes to the system and the way we scrutinise estimates, the process is still wholly inadequate. Part of that inadequacy is the fact that we have no certainty about what will or will not be a discrete line within the estimates. We have no certainty about whether we can get the costs for something. As the shadow Minister said, when she asked for costs for UKRI, in relation to freedom of information requests, for example, she did not get them. Even if ARIA is to be an arm’s length organisation in relation to BEIS, with a memorandum of understanding, but it will be spending public money, I would be keen to keep track of how much we are allocating to ARIA each year. Once again, it would be quite good if the Minister would make a commitment to a discrete line in the estimates. If she does that, I will be more than happy to say nothing else.

[Amanda Solloway]

New clause 3 is intended to ensure that ARIA is presented as a discrete item in the supply estimates. ARIA will be funded by BEIS and, like all other BEIS arm’s length bodies, will be separately identified in the BEIS supply estimates. ARIA statements of accounts, which will be laid before Parliament every year, will also include information on ARIA’s funding from BEIS. I therefore believe that the new clause would be an unnecessary addition to the Bill.

[Kirsty Blackman]

With that confirmation from the Minister, I am happy to say that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Ethical code for investment

‘(1) Within three months of the date of commencement of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a code for ethical investment developed and agreed by ARIA.

(2) The code of ethics developed by ARIA under subsection (1) must go beyond regulatory requirements and adopt a best practice approach.’ —(Stephen Flynn.)

This new clause is intended to ensure that ARIA develops a code for ethical investment that goes beyond regulatory requirements and adopts a best practice approach.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Stephen Flynn]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Again, the new clause is very straightforward. It is intended to ensure that ARIA develops a code of ethical investment that goes beyond regulatory requirements, and adopts a best practice approach. What is not to like? That is something that we should all aspire to, particularly when it comes to such a significant amount of public money. We have talked at length today and on Second Reading about ARIA’s ability to dodge freedom of information requests, and the like. The new clause would provide the assurance that we need, given that the Government appear unwilling and unable to take forward our views on freedom of information. It perhaps provides a compromise position.

[Amanda Solloway]

I recognise the issue raised in the amendment. The most transformational scientific research, of the kind that will be pursued by ARIA, is likely to have a wide range of potential technological applications, across different areas. Such research may prompt new ethical debates, such as those that we are already having about AI and robotics. The Government welcome lively, open and democratic public and parliamentary debate on the roles that new technologies play in our lives, and I do not think that that is something we should shy away from. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that ARIA will operate in line with the law that already governs issues of research ethics, such as the use of animals in research. ARIA will not be given special dispensation to fund research that is not considered appropriate elsewhere.

I draw attention to the fact that there is no specific legislative requirement placed on UKRI, a much larger-scale funder, with respect to issues of research ethics. For ARIA the Government would be able to intervene in exceptional circumstances through the national security provision in clause 4 of the Bill, as we have already discussed.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I understand what the Minister says about the fact that there is no such provision for UKRI. However, perhaps if was being set up now, we would suggest that there should be. For her information, the Scottish National Investment Bank has a clause almost identical to new clause 4, on ethical investment. We believe that if the Scottish National Investment Bank can operate on that basis, ARIA should have no problem doing so. I understand exactly what she says about the debates that are happening, but that is why it is even more important for ARIA to sign up to some kind of code of ethics that we can all scrutinise.

[Amanda Solloway]

To reiterate our viewpoint, the Government would be able to intervene in exceptional circumstances through the national security provision in clause 4, which we have already discussed, and by introducing powers on the grounds of conflict of interest and appointing a new chair or new non-executive directors. More broadly, in working with relevant Government institutions, special attention will be paid to ensuring that ethical questions generated by research are thoroughly explored and that we strike an appropriate balance between innovation and caution.

[Stephen Flynn]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5

Human rights abuses

“No ARIA resources may be used in any way that would contravene human rights.”—(Stephen Flynn.)

This new clause is intended to ensure that ARIA is not able to contravene human rights.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Stephen Flynn]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is perhaps apt to reflect on the debate on the annunciator screens, which relates to many right hon. and hon. Members’ concerns about human rights. Those concerns are just and appropriate, and I do not think that any of us wants to be under any illusion about whether ARIA might have cause to have or seek investment in technologies that may contravene human rights. It is an incredibly serious topic.

We can see from the Bill the flexibility and freedom that ARIA will have. We hear from the Government that they want it to be agile and nimble, and we know that it will not have the level of scrutiny and transparency that perhaps it should—certainly in our view. I would welcome an incredibly serious tone from the Minister and a cast-iron assurance that human rights will not be contravened in any way, shape or form by ARIA and its processes.

[Chi Onwurah]

I second the concerns raised by the SNP spokesperson. If ARIA commissioned research, for example, that was collaborative between the UK and a Chinese tech company involved in the Uyghur human rights abuses, which are so extreme, how would we know about it and what action could be taken?

[Amanda Solloway]

I completely agree with the sentiment and the intention behind the new clause. Human rights are protected in law in the United Kingdom through the Human Rights Act 1998, and ARIA will be subject to public authority obligations under the Act. I refer the hon. Member for Aberdeen South to the first page of the Bill, which confirms that the Secretary of State has signed a statement to the effect that

“the provisions…are compatible with the Convention rights.”

I therefore reassure the Committee that ARIA will operate in a way that is compatible with the European convention on human rights; indeed, it would be unlawful under existing legislation for it not to do so. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Member that there is no need for the new clause.

[The Chair]

Mr Flynn, the ball is in your court.

[Stephen Flynn]

I think that there remain some outstanding concerns that are not covered by other Acts from the UK Government that we have debated in the House over many years. I do not think that the Minister necessarily addressed the shadow Minister’s question about ARIA seeking to partner with an organisation that was in breach of human rights or that contravened them in its activity, but I am more than happy for her to intervene if she wishes to correct me.

[Chi Onwurah]

The concern over human rights in supply chains for tech companies has been raised a number of times, but we have yet to see it properly addressed by the Government. That echoes a concern represented here, and I hope that there will be an opportunity for the Minister to reassure us further.

[Stephen Flynn]

I thank the hon. Member for that important contribution. On that note, I will press the new clause to a vote. I hope the Government will reflect on the issue before the Bill comes back to the House.

Question put and negatived.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.

[The Chair]

I know that Members will be disappointed that this is the final question before the Committee.

[Chi Onwurah]

On a point of order, Mr Hollobone. I thank you for the way in which you have chaired our deliberations, and for your guidance and that of the Chair of each sitting. I thank the Committee members, whose contributions have just about always been good-natured and constructive, and have often been humorous and enlightening at the same time. I offer my particular thanks to the Clerks of the Committee, to Hansard for taking down our words of wisdom—or whatever—so accurately and concisely, and to all the staff and Officers of the House who have furnished us with excellent briefings for the evidence sessions. We have benefited from their advice and guidance outside of the Committee Room as well.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Further to that point of order, Mr Hollobone. I echo the comments made by the shadow Minister. I have said thanks very much to the Clerks, but I also put on the record my thanks to Dr Jonathan Kiehlmann and Scott Taylor, our staff members who have been assisting us. I also put on the record my thanks to the Minister, who wrote to us with a response to questions that we asked on Tuesday. I thank her and her team for ensuring that happened.

[Amanda Solloway]

Further to that point of order, Mr Hollobone. I take this opportunity to place on the record my sincere thanks to the Chairs for their excellent chairship. We have finished proceedings early, and I thank the Whips on both sides for their efforts in the management of time. I thank the excellent witnesses we heard from last week, and I thank all members of the Committee for our constructive debates. I am so pleased that every member recognises ARIA’s potential to bolster the reach of R&D funding across the whole United Kingdom and to be at the global forefront of new discoveries.

I very much welcome the sentiment behind the amendments we have discussed, such as maintaining the independence of ARIA, diversity in science and the importance of combating climate change. I hope I have demonstrated that the Bill will create a leading independent research institution and, while it is not for this piece of legislation, that the Government are making significant progress on other areas of policy through our net zero commitments and our upcoming people and culture strategy and places strategy. I welcome the support in delivering those aims.

Finally, I offer my thanks to the Clerks, the Doorkeepers, Hansard, all the parliamentary staff who have supported the debate and all members of the Committee for ensuring smooth proceedings and the livestreaming of the discussions. I look forward with great anticipation to the next stages of proceedings on the Bill and the continued insight from my experienced colleagues across the House.

[The Chair]

I thank the Clerks for their hard work, and the Hansard reporters and all hon. Members for their attendance this afternoon.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.

15:15

Committee rose.

Finance (No.2) Bill (Second sitting)

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Dame Angela Eagle, † Sir Gary Streeter

† Bacon, Gareth (Orpington) (Con)

† Badenoch, Kemi (Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury)

† Buchan, Felicity (Kensington) (Con)

† Coutinho, Claire (East Surrey) (Con)

† Eshalomi, Florence (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)

† Grant, Peter (Glenrothes) (SNP)

† Higginbotham, Antony (Burnley) (Con)

† Jones, Andrew (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)

Marson, Julie (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)

† Murray, James (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)

† Norman, Jesse (Financial Secretary to the Treasury)

† Oppong-Asare, Abena (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)

† Owen, Sarah (Luton North) (Lab)

† Russell, Dean (Watford) (Con)

† Rutley, David (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

† Smith, Jeff (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)

† Thewliss, Alison (Glasgow Central) (SNP)

Chris Stanton, Jo Dodd, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Thursday 22 April 2021

(Afternoon)

[Sir Gary Streeter in the Chair]

Finance (No.2) Bill

(Except Clauses 1 to 5; Clauses 6 to 14 and Schedule 1; Clauses 24 to 26; Clause 28; Clause 30 and Schedule 6; Clauses 31 to 33; Clause 36 and Schedule 7; Clause 40; Clause 41; Clause 86; Clauses 87 to 89 and Schedules 16 and 17; Clauses 90 and 91; Clauses 92 to 96 and Schedule18; Clause 97 and Schedule 19; Clauses 109 to 111 and Schedules 21 and 22; Clause 115 and Schedule 27; Clauses 117 to 121 and Schedules 29 to 32; Clauses 128 to 130; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to: the impact of any provision on the financial resources of families or to the subject matter of Clauses 1 to 5, 24 to 26, 28, 31 to 33, 40 and 86; the subject matter of Clauses 6 to 14 and Schedule 1; the impact of any provision on regional economic development; tax avoidance or evasion; the subject matter of Clauses 87 to 89 and Schedules 16 and 17 and Clauses 90 and 91; the subject matter of Clauses 92 to 96 and Schedule 18, Clause 97 and Schedule 19 and Clauses 128 to 130)

Clause 42

Plastic packaging tax

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

14:00

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 43 to 46 stand part.

New clause 8—Report on Part 2—

“(1) The Secretary of State shall, before 1 April 2023, publish a report on the impact of the provisions in Part 2 of this Act.

(2) The report in subsection (1) shall include consideration of the impact on—

(a) the rate of plastic recycling in the UK generally,

(b) the rate of PET plastic recycling in the UK,

(c) the rate of Polypropylene plastic recycling in the UK, and

(d) the rate of HDPE plastic recycling in the UK.

(3) The report in subsection (1) shall include consideration of the impact on—

(a) the volume of plastic used in the UK,

(b) the volume of PET plastic used in the UK,

(c) the volume of Polypropylene plastic used in the UK, and

(d) the volume of HDPE plastic used in the UK.

(4) The report in subsection (1) shall include consideration of the impact on—

(a) the volume of plastic stockpiling in the UK,

(b) the volume of PET plastic stockpiling in the UK,

(c) the volume of Polypropylene plastic stockpiling in the UK, and

(d) the volume of HDPE plastic stockpiling in the UK.

(5) The report in subsection (1) shall consider whether—

(a) £200/tonne provides an economic incentive to change the content of packaging for those types of plastic specified in subsection (2),

(b) the economic incentive in subsection (5)(a) remains in the event of lower than average oil prices, and

(c) a tax escalator might be more efficacious.”.

This new clause seeks a review of the efficacy of the proposed plastic packaging tax, with respect to whether the proposals will (a) increase use of certain plastics and (b) provide an incentive to recycle in the event of low oil prices.

New clause 11—Rate review (plastic packaging tax)—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the impact of section 45 and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) A review under this section must estimate the expected impact of section 45 on—

(a) plastic packaging tax revenue,

(b) levels of recycled material (plastic and non-plastic) in packaging, and

(c) levels of reusability and recyclability of packaging material (plastic and non-plastic).

(3) A review under this section must also estimate the expected impact of increasing the rate set out in section 45 by £50 each year.”.

New clause 13—Annual review (plastic packaging tax)—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the impact of sections 42 to 85 and schedules 9 to 15 of this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act and once a year thereafter.

(2) A review under this section must estimate the expected impact of sections 42 to 85 and schedules 9 to 15 on—

(a) levels of recycled material (plastic and non-plastic) in packaging,

(b) levels of reusability and recyclability of packaging material (plastic and non-plastic),

(c) the waste hierarchy,

(d) levels of carbon emissions, and

(e) progress towards a circular economy.”.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)]

As the Committee will know, the Government are deeply committed to greening our economy and being the greenest Government ever. As part of our resources and waste strategy, published in 2018, we committed to reducing waste and incentivising more sustainable production. The introduction of this world-leading tax on plastic packaging is a key part of that strategy.

Plastic waste is a pressing global issue. It often does not decompose and can last centuries in landfill, or ends up littering the streets or polluting the natural environment. More than 2.2 million tonnes of plastic packaging are manufactured in the UK each year. The vast majority is made from new plastic, rather than recycled material, because recycled plastic is often more expensive to use than new plastic. To tackle this, our 2019 manifesto reaffirmed the commitment to introduce a world-leading new tax on plastic packaging from April 2022. The tax will apply to the manufacture and import of plastic packaging that does not contain at least 30% recycled plastic.

The tax charge will arise on unfilled packaging manufactured in the UK and to unfilled or filled packaging imported into the UK. Including imported filled packaging in the tax will prevent any potential disadvantage to the UK packaging industry and means that packaging around imported products—for example, the bottle a drink comes in—will be within the scope of the tax.

The tax will provide a clear economic incentive for businesses to use recycled material when manufacturing plastic packaging. That will help to tackle the problem of plastic pollution, creating greater demand for this material and in turn stimulating increased levels of recycling and collection of plastic waste, diverting it away from landfill or incineration.

Clauses 42 to 46 set out the introduction of the plastic packaging tax. They provide the high-level principles around the charging of the tax, including key definitions needed to give businesses clarity about whether they are liable to the tax on packaging they manufacture or import. The Bill also provides powers to make secondary legislation that will provide further clarity to these definitions. That will be supported by guidance, which will also be published later this year.

Clause 42 introduces the PPT and sets out that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will be responsible for its collection and management, in line with its wider responsibilities for the collection and management of taxes. Clauses 43 and 44 set out that the tax will be paid on packaging manufactured in the course of business in the UK, as well as on imported plastic packaging. For packaging manufactured in the UK, the manufacturer will be liable for the tax. For imported packaging, the person on whose behalf the packaging is imported will be liable, as they are better placed to know about the packaging than those providing customs and transport services to import goods.

Clause 45 sets out that the tax will be charged at a rate of £200 per metric tonne of chargeable plastic packaging. We will come later to the clause that sets out the 30% threshold for recycled plastic, below which the tax will be charged. A £200 rate provides a clear economic incentive for businesses to use recycled material when manufacturing plastic packaging. The clause specifies that this rate applies to a single plastic packaging component, such as bottles, lids and wrappers. This will mean that manufacturers and importers have incentives to include 30% recycled plastic in each type of plastic packaging component that they manufacture or import. If this is part of a tonne, the amount is reduced proportionately. For example, 0.5 tonnes would equate to £100 in tax. Clause 46 provides the high-level principles for the payment of the tax in relation to the relevant accounting periods. Further detail on this will be set out in regulations.

I now turn to new clause 8, tabled by the hon. Members for Glasgow Central, for Glenrothes, for Gordon and for Midlothian, and new clauses 11 and 13, tabled by the hon. Members for Ealing North, for Erith and Thamesmead and for Manchester, Withington. These new clauses suggest that the Government conduct future reviews into the tax and the impact that it has, including after six months of passing the Bill for the tax rate and for all aspects of the tax in the year after introduction, or annually after an initial report.

The Government have already set out a large amount of detail about the expected impact of the tax, and a National Audit Office report on environmental taxes recently concluded that Her Majesty’s Treasury and HMRC

“had undertaken extensive work to understand the possible impact of the tax.”

The tax information and impact note published in March this year set out that, as a result of the tax, the use of recycled plastic in packaging could increase by around an estimated 40%—equal to carbon savings of nearly 200,000 tonnes—with expected revenue from the tax ranging from £210 million to £235 million a year between 2022-23 and 2025-26. Further detail on modelling to assess the impacts of the plastic packaging tax was set out by the Office for Budget Responsibility in its economic and fiscal outlook published in March 2020. Most significantly, that included the increase in recycled plastic in packaging and more marginal impacts, such as switching to alternative plastics or materials.

The aim of the tax is to incentivise the use of more recycled plastic, rather than new plastic, in plastic packaging. The tax will complement the reformed packaging producer responsibility regulations, which will encourage businesses to design and use plastic packaging that is easier to recycle, and discourage the creation of plastic packaging that is difficult to recycle. They will also make businesses responsible for the cost of managing the packaging they place on the market when it becomes waste. Given that, the Government have focused analysis of the plastic packaging tax on the objectives rather than wider issues such as the reuse and recyclability of packaging, as suggested in new clause 13.

As with all tax policy, the Government will continue to keep the plastic packaging tax under review, including the level of the tax, to ensure that it remains effective in increasing the use of recycled plastic. Given the substantive information already published and the fact that limited new information is likely to be available before the tax is introduced, six months after the passage of the Bill would not be the right time to conduct and publish a review into the impact of the tax rate and chargeable packaging components.

As regards evaluating the tax annually after its introduction, being able to accurately isolate the impact of particular policy measures alongside other external factors is inherently difficult, and the Government will carefully consider those issues. As set out in the tax information and impact note published in March this year, consideration will be given to evaluating aspects, including the rate, threshold and exemptions, of the policy after at least one year of monitoring data has been analysed and collected.

The Government agree that it is important to understand the efficacy and impacts of the plastic packaging tax, but given that these issues have been previously considered and will be kept under review, we do not think new clauses 8, 11 and 13 are necessary. The clauses in the Bill form the first part of the legislation needed to introduce the plastic packaging tax in April 2022. I therefore move that they stand part of the Bill.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I rise to speak to new clause 8, tabled in my name and that of my colleagues. I remain interested in the idea of a plastic packaging tax, and I will support it because too many of our natural resources are being wasted. We know from looking around that things are often thrown away that could be used again. We certainly broadly support what the Government are trying to do here, and it is a shame that it does not align with the deposit return scheme, which has been delayed in England but will move ahead in Scotland, because doing these things at the same time would have made a lot of sense and would make for a cohesive and coherent policy.

We tabled our new clause because there are aspects of the Bill where we need a wee bit more detail and aspects where the Government could be more ambitious. It is an ambitious new policy, but I think that more could be done. For example, we understand from the consultation that Her Majesty’s Treasury has closed a loophole that would have allowed people to switch to bringing in packaging from abroad, but there are still questions around the operation of the paperwork and the audit trail that will be required to ensure the success of the scheme. We also understand that the provisions are to be made by regulation under the negative procedure, and we urge the Government to be as clear as possible about how that will work, because it is important. Those in the industry will want to know how that will operate, and it falls to us as elected representatives to scrutinise that as much as we can to ensure that it is done properly.

Having spoken to stakeholders, there are concerns that I want to set out. The first is about the 30% threshold. Last night, I went to pick up a bottle of brand-name lemonade from the supermarket as part of my dinner. It proudly proclaimed on the side that it was 50% recycled, which is already above the 30% threshold—they were already doing more.

Some plastics lend themselves more to a higher level than others. PET, which is used in fizzy juice bottles such as my lemonade bottle, can be commonly and easily recycled up to 100%, so 30% is quite low for that type of plastic. The new clause seeks to look at different types of plastic and the scope for recycling them.

Polypropylene, which is used for food-grade plastics, is much more difficult to recycle. Just before lunchtime, a briefing from the Food and Drink Federation reached me. It queries what will happen about food-grade plastics and whether food businesses can avoid paying the plastic packaging tax when they cannot legally increase the recycled content of packaging in certain polymer types and formats for food contact. There are different regulations for food-grade plastics than for other plastics.

HDPE, which is used in milk bottles, could reach 30%. The dairy industry road map suggested that it was aiming for 50% of recycled material in opaque milk bottles. Again, we are not quite sure what the 30% makes possible. It would be good to be more ambitious in the areas where we can do more recycling, so that we can storm ahead. In areas where it is more difficult, it makes sense to look at things slightly differently.

The Association of Accounting Technicians commented on the international context. Brands such as Kraft Heinz have committed to make 100% of packaging worldwide recyclable or compostable by 2025. The American Chemistry Council’s plastics division is working towards 100% of plastic packaging being recyclable and recoverable by 2030. The European Commission and the Australian Government are also pushing ahead and say that 30% appears to lack ambition on a global scale.

I gently urge the Government to see if there is a differentiated approach that might be a bit more ambitious and a bit more detailed, to allow those areas where more speed is possible to push ahead. The Green Alliance believe that a differentiated obligation would be useful, because there is potential there. While we want all areas to be recycling 100% if possible, there are real technical difficulties in doing so at the moment.

The Green Alliance is also concerned about perverse outcomes from the Bill around packaging composed of multiple materials, such as card coated in a plastic or other such elements. Such items are very difficult and specialist to recycle. We would not want people to switch to those items rather than plastics; that would make the recycling situation worse because those items cannot be recycled and recovered as easily. Our new clause also addresses that point, as well as ensuring the reporting of recycling rates and the volume use of the relevant plastics.

It is important to note that the price of plastics, both recycled and virgin material, is very volatile, fluctuating with the oil price, which as we all know has moved considerably in recent years. We are worried that the scheme will not deliver the desired outcome in the event of low oil prices. Some experts suggest that plastics recycling is unviable if the oil price is under £65 a barrel. An HMT analysis of the tax level required to balance that volatility and reduce exposure would seem logical.

The £200 per tonne levy could be set higher, and there should be further analysis. At £200 per tonne, it might be more viable for businesses to pay the tax, rather than recycle the materials, which is not the Government’s very laudable aim. It would be useful to understand that fully, as low oil prices will have an impact on the viability of recyclers. Some have attributed the failures of recycling plants in London and Lincolnshire in 2015 and 2017 to that oil-price volatility. We want to ensure that those recyclers are viable businesses. We want to give a future to this sector and to ensure that these businesses can thrive, because they do good work.

A contrast has been drawn with the landfill tax, which has a clear trajectory and clear predictability, allowing people to plan a way for the market to shift to alternatives. We need to make it as easy as possible for businesses to do that. An escalator, as suggested by the Green Alliance, would be useful, so that people can plan and, if behaviour changes or other prices play into that, there is a clear sense of where we are going.

14:18

I know from my previous experience as a local government councillor in Glasgow that some recyclers stockpiled plastics until the price was right to sell. I visited one of the recycling facilities in Glasgow at the time—not recently, but about 10 years ago—and they were clearly stockpiling recycled materials, because it was not worth their while to sell them, and they would not get the return to Glasgow City Council on those materials. However, that meant that they needed the space to stockpile all those plastics, and it was building up, which had an impact on what they were able to do. The head of recycling at the time told me how he was having to phone up and haggle to get the best prices for some of the recycling within the city. That is not really what is wanted; we want a stable market, so that there is clear throughput and people can understand what money they will receive for the recycled material. There is certainly more to be considered. What consideration has the Minister given to that? What has come back through consultation with those who gather the recycled materials, because that is important?

Further to that, the Food and Drink Federation has asked whether the Government will consider ring-fencing the funds from the plastic packaging tax to re-invest in the recycling infrastructure across the UK. That seems pretty sensible. If we are trying to get the maximum amount recycled, we want to capture that as best we can. If there is money there, that would be useful.

Lastly, the British Plastics Federation—it fully supports the Bill, and was keen to stress that in its correspondence—expressed some concerns about how recycled content will be measured. It is difficult to measure once it is in a product, so we need clear mechanisms ahead of that. The federation also raised the issues I mentioned to do with food safety and other regulations and exemptions, and asked whether all plastic materials can be recycled properly, given what is in them. It feels that it is unfair to tax companies where regulations do not permit the use of recycled materials, which specifically affects food and cosmetic applications, because that cost will then be passed on to those companies, which can do little about it. Would that be a fair consequence of the legislation?

There is certainly a lot of scope here to change public behaviour and to make a real difference to plastic pollution across the UK. I commend the Government for looking at the issue, but very much urge them to look at the secondary details and to give some answers on exactly how this will work.

[Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Gary—for the second time this week for me.

I begin my discussion of the plastic packaging tax by saying that we welcome the new tax in principle. As members of the Committee can see, we have tabled a number of amendments to the clauses in this part of the Bill. We hope to encourage the Government to make improvements where they are needed. I will make some general remarks and be brief about the other proposals.

Plastic pollution is one of the biggest threats to our environment. In the UK, an estimated 5 billion tonnes of plastic are used every year, nearly half of which is packaging, and 67% of plastic waste comes from packaging. A report from the World Wildlife Fund calculated that total plastic waste generation in the UK could increase to about 6.3 million tonnes by 2030. As the Minister rightly mentioned, the vast majority of the plastic packaging used in the UK is from new rather than recycled plastic. We also know that far too much of that plastic waste goes to landfill or is incinerated, rather than being recycled or reused, so there is a dual problem: the environmental impact of producing new plastic, and the waste that is created by the failure to recycle plastic.

As the Green Alliance, to which I am grateful for its briefing on the issue, has said, solving those problems without increasing other environmental burdens will require an approach that tackles wider concerns about unsustainable resource use. It is a challenge that businesses, Government, and the whole of society must face together. The new plastic packaging tax is an opportunity to use the tax system to reduce the production of new plastics, encourage the use of recycled plastic, and divert plastic away from landfill or incineration.

However, we have a number of concerns about the detail and operation of the tax set out in these clauses. As the Exchequer Secretary mentioned, clause 45 sets a rate of £200 per metric tonne of chargeable plastic packaging components. We are concerned that this low flat rate tax will not provide enough of an incentive to encourage plastic manufacturers and importers to move to a greater use of recycled plastic at the speed we need them to. I echo comments made by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central, which the Green Alliance and others have also noted, that the relative effectiveness of the flat tax is likely to change according to market conditions, including seasonal variations in plastic prices and fluctuations in oil prices. Over the past year, low oil prices have impacted on the competitiveness of recycled plastic versus new plastic.

Our new clause 11 is a probing amendment to get the Government to review the impact of the £200 rate, and to consider a rate escalator through which the per tonne charge would increase each year. Of course, we understand that further work is required to set this at an appropriate level, but an escalator would set a clear expectation on the industry over the coming year. The SNP’s new clause 8 makes a similar point about whether the proposed rate provides the right incentive to remove non-recycled plastic from packaging as much as possible. The Food and Drink Federation has also asked whether the Government will consider ringfencing funds from the plastic packaging tax, to be reinvested in the UK’s plastic recycling infrastructure. I hope that when the Exchequer Secretary replies, she can respond to a number of the concerns that we have raised.

I will just add that our new clause 13, which is also in this group, is more of a general review on the impact of tax overall on levels of recycled material in packaging. That includes non-plastic material, the waste hierarchy, levels of carbon emissions, and progress towards a circular economy. Again, I hope the Exchequer Secretary can pick up on some of those points.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I will go through the points that hon. Members have raised, and I think I will be able to answer quite a few of their questions. On the point about the 30% recycled plastic threshold being too low to be effective, I would say to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central that a £200 per tonne rate for plastic packaging that does not contain at least 30% recycled plastic will provide a clearer economic incentive for businesses to use more recycled plastic in the production of packaging—at the moment, it is just about 10%—and, in many cases, will make it more cost effective. We as a Government believe that setting the threshold for the level of recycled packaging at 30% is ambitious, reflects the pressing need to act on this issue and is achievable in the foreseeable future for many types of packaging. There is no point setting a threshold that we do not think people will be able to meet.

On the question of consultation with industry representatives and stakeholders, we consulted extensively. All regulations under this part of this Bill will also go through a public technical consultation before they are finalised. We will seek comments from interested stakeholders. HMRC has also set up the plastic packaging tax industry working group and conducted meetings with it to support the implementation of the tax and aid the process of drafting regulations and guidance. I take the point that the hon. Lady has made about the clarity of that guidance, and I am sure—because HMRC is working with the industry working group—that it will get there. The group consists of an independent expert and trade organisations that cover the wide range of sectors affected by the tax, ensuring that a broad range of views are taken into account.

To date, the Government have conducted extensive engagement with the industry on the design of the tax, and held two policy design consultations and one technical consultation about the clauses of this Bill. HMRC also continues to have regular contact with the devolved Administrations, non-Government departmental bodies, and other interested stakeholders about all activity regarding the tax.

[Alison Thewliss]

I am glad to hear that that engagement is ongoing. Can I ask whether the Food and Drink Federation is included within that? I am a wee bit concerned that its concerns came through this afternoon, just before we were due to discuss this issue. Perhaps the timetable that we have gone through with the Bill has surprised people who thought that they had a couple of days longer to get their submissions in, and I would like to know whether the Food and Drink Federation was part of that.

[Kemi Badenoch]

The Food and Drink Federation is part of the industry working group. The other members are WRAP, the British Plastics Federation, the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management, the Foodservice Packaging Association, the Grantham Institute, the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport, Inkpen, the British Retail Consortium, the Packaging Scheme Forum, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry and the Forum of Private Business.

I was asked whether there is evidence that the tax will cause any change because of the level that it has been set at, but I think I answered that in my previous answer.

The hon. Members for Erith and Thamesmead and for Glasgow Central asked about the oil price. The Government recognise that the price of oil may impact on the demand for virgin and recycled plastic, which is why we are putting in place a number of reforms to transform the economics of recycling. A stabilisation fund to protect against changes to the oil price would be highly complex to administer and would carry a risk to public finances. We are not going with that, but tax measures are being introduced by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, including extended producer responsibility reforms and a deposit scheme. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central mentioned that there is one in Scotland, and we will be introducing one in England as soon as is practical. We are seeking feedback on proposed timelines from DEFRA’s consultations. All of that will help increase the supply and quality of recycled plastic, making it a cheaper and more viable alternative to virgin plastic. That will also make demand for recyclable plastic less susceptible to changes in the oil price.

There was a similar question about complex multi-material packaging. We are not making an exemption for that, because during the consultation on the treatment of multi-material packaging, the Government decided that all packaging in which plastic is the largest material by weight should be within the scope of the tax. This will make it easier for businesses to administer the tax, and it will also rightly focus on packaging components that use the most plastic as a proportion of all material. We are confident that a reformed producer responsibility system for packaging will complement the tax and incentivise businesses to design and use packaging that can be recycled more easily.

[Alison Thewliss]

One of the things that has been raised with me is that, if someone gets a traditional coffee cup from any high street coffee chain, the coffee cup would not be within the scope of the Bill, but the lid would be. Does that not seem a wee bit perverse?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I am not sure that is the case. HMRC and the members of the working group could give specific details on exactly how that would work, but we are having the public technical consultation. That is the sort of question that can be raised there; hopefully, it will receive an answer.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 43 to 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47

Chargeable plastic packaging components

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 47, page 26, line 4, at end insert—

“(6) Before making regulations under subsection (5), the Commissioners must consult—

(a) industry representatives,

(b) environmental NGOs, and

(c) any other relevant individuals or organisations.”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Clauses 48 to 50 stand part.

New clause 12—Plastic packaging components review—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the impact of section 47 and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) A review under this section must estimate the expected impact of section 47 on—

(a) plastic packaging tax revenue,

(b) levels of recycled material (plastic and non-plastic) in packaging, and

(c) levels of reusability and recyclability of packaging material (plastic and non-plastic).

(3) A review under this section must also estimate the expected impact of—

(a) raising the 30% threshold in section 47 by 5% each year, and

(b) introducing a power to vary the 30% threshold in section 47 depending on the type of plastic packaging.”

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

I rise to speak to amendment 20 and new clause 12, as well as to the Government clauses. Clause 47 sets out the plastic packaging tax that will be charged on plastic packaging in which less than 30% of the plastic is recycled. Again, we are concerned that the Government’s ambition is too low. The UK plastic cap is already targeting an average of 30% recycled content across all plastic packaging by 2025.

New clause 12 is another probing amendment, to get the Government to consider creating an escalator in the amount of material that must be recycled in order to avoid the tax. An escalator that would be used effectively to reduce landfill would signal the Government’s commitment in this area and would also help businesses to plan for an increase in their use of recycled material over time, rather than being locked into unsustainable supply chains. It would also encourage the development of technology to overcome barriers to higher recycled content use. Further work would be needed on the precise percentage increase that would be needed each year to achieve the optimal reduction in non-recycled plastic.

14:30

Subsection (3)(b) of new clause 12 would require the Government to consider varying the 30% threshold, depending on the type of plastic packaging. Recycled content is easier to achieve for some polymers than for others. Green Alliance has pointed out that a single obligation will encourage gaming and switching between polymers. For example, manufacturers could reduce recycled content in packaging that already exceeds the threshold so that they can increase it elsewhere, resulting in no overall improvement. I hope that the Minister will look closely at the possibility of varying this threshold, as appropriate.

Amendment 20 is really a simple amendment to clause 47, which would require the commissioners to consult industry representatives and environmental NGOs before making regulations about the way in which the 30% threshold is calculated. At the moment, there is very little clarity about the verification process that will be used. Ideally, what we need is something such as an independent and verifiable recycled content verification system. As our amendment says, this should be developed in consultation with businesses and other stakeholders, to ensure that information on recycled content is trustworthy and can be audited, including for overseas producers.

In their witness evidence to this Committee, the British Plastics Federation has pointed out that the definition of “plastic packaging” for the tax is not aligned with the widespread definition of “plastic packaging” within existing UK and EU law, which it said is likely to result in confusion among manufacturers. Can the Minister explain why a different definition has been used? I hope that the Government will commit to working closely with all interested parties on this matter.

Finally, I will say something about the exemption of packaging made of multiple materials, which is set out in clause 48(3). In practice, it means that many of the materials that are most difficult to recycle that contain plastic—for example coffee cups and food cartons, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central—will not be captured by the tax. We are concerned that this could have the unintended consequence of encouraging businesses to switch to that sort of packaging, in order to avoid the tax.

Multi-layer materials are particularly difficult to recycle and cannot be recycled back into the same format. Cartons are not reported as a separate packaging category in recycling information, so it is impossible to say what the current recycling rate for them is. The UK has one open-loop recycling facility for cartons, with a capacity of 25,000 tonnes per annum. This compares with a market size of at least 60,000 tonnes per annum, meaning that it is already impossible to recycle domestically all the cartons put on the market in the UK.

Can the Minister address these concerns directly? What will the Government do to encourage recycling of this type of material? How will they ensure that the plastic packaging tax does not inadvertently increase the use of plastic? Finally, will they consider bringing the materials that I have just talked about within the scope of the tax in the future?

[Kemi Badenoch]

Clauses 47 to 50 set out key high-level definitions for the plastic packaging tax, which between them define the meaning of “plastic packaging”, when packaging is in scope of the tax and at what point packaging becomes chargeable. These are important definitions that give businesses clarity about whether their packaging will be liable to the tax, so I will go through them thoroughly. I will add that they will be supported by regulations and guidance later this year, to give further clarity to businesses.

Clause 47 determines the minimum threshold for the recycled plastic content that packaging must meet to be out of scope of the tax. For packaging that comes under this threshold, clause 47 also sets out at what point this packaging becomes chargeable. For imported plastic packaging, clause 50, which I will turn to shortly, also needs to be considered when determining the tax point. The tax will be charged on plastic packaging that contains less than 30% recycled plastic when measured by weight, and once it has gone through its “last substantial modification”. The concept of “last substantial modification” was introduced following stakeholder feedback that the packaging supply chain is complex and packaging is not always completed by a single manufacturer. By moving the tax point to after the last substantial modification, we reduce the risk that UK manufacturers will be disadvantaged by the tax by bringing the tax point to when the packaging is finished, as it is for imported packaging. This also keeps the tax point as close to the manufacturer of the packaging as possible, where there is most knowledge and evidence about what recycled plastic it contains. I hope that that answers the questions from the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead.

Let me turn briefly to amendment 20, which was tabled by the hon. Members for Ealing North, for Erith and Thamesmead and for Manchester, Withington. It would require the Government to consult industry representatives, environmental non-governmental organisations and other relevant organisations prior to making regulations under subsection (5) of this clause. Since the Budget announcement in 2018, my officials have conducted two policy consultations on the design of the tax and a further technical consultation on the draft legislation in this Bill. These responses were analysed to inform and validate policy decisions for the design of the tax. The Government are currently developing regulations and will continue to consult industry representatives, both through Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ plastic packaging tax industry working group, which I mentioned and, more broadly, through a technical consultation on these regulations, as with all other regulations that are required to support the implementation of this tax. Given that comprehensive consultation with external stakeholders, such as that detailed in this amendment, has and continues to be a major feature of the design and implementation of this tax, the amendment is not necessary.

Clause 48 defines what a “packaging component” is—a product designed to be suitable for use for the containment, protection, handling, delivering or presentation of goods in the supply chain. This includes items such as plastic wrap, drinks bottles, and food packaging such as yoghurt pots and ready-meal trays. The scope of this definition includes packaging that does not fulfil its packaging function until it is used by the end consumer. This definition was revised following a technical consultation to ensure that only items designed to be suitable for use as packaging in the supply chain of the goods from the producer—in other words, the manufacturer—to the consumer are in scope; but to provide clarity to the person liable for the tax, who may not know the eventual use of the packaging, it does not matter whether the packaging is used in a supply chain or by an end consumer for packaging such as cling film or bubble wrap.

Clause 49 defines key terms relating to plastic, including the meanings of “plastic” and “recycled plastic”. The definitions in this clause determine whether a packaging component is plastic, and whether any of the plastic within that packaging component is recycled. The definition of plastic includes alternative plastics, such as biodegradables and compostables, putting them in scope of the tax. Although alternative plastics can play a role in addressing plastic waste, further evidence of their impact is required. For this reason, work is ongoing in this area and we will keep their tax treatment under review. The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead asked why the definition of plastic packaging in the Bill does not align with packaging regulations terminology. We recognise that there are differences between the definition of plastic packaging for the tax and packaging producer responsibility obligations, an issue that the British Plastics Federation raised. However, differences between the design of the tax and these responsibility obligations mean that a different approach is required. For example, the tax will have quarterly reporting periods, whereas businesses have longer to determine use and report their annual packaging producer responsibility obligations—these are often known as packaging recovery notes, or PRNs. Furthermore, PRNs adopt the EU definition of packaging, and now that we have left the EU we do not feel it appropriate to use this, especially as we are aware that the EU definition is under review and therefore subject to change.

Clause 50 establishes the time of importation. It ensures that, where there is a customs formality in place, such as customs warehousing, the tax will become chargeable only after the plastic packaging has cleared the customs processes where these apply. That will ensure that the tax does not act as a barrier to international trade and gives clarity to businesses about when the tax becomes due for imported plastic packaging.

I turn to new clause 12, tabled by the hon. Members for Ealing North, for Erith and Thamesmead and for Manchester, Withington. The new clause suggests that the Government conduct a future review into the impact of clause 47, including the impact of increasing the 30% threshold for recycled content and having different thresholds for different types of plastic packaging. A £200 per tonne rate for plastic packaging that does not contain at least 30% recycled plastic will provide a clear economic incentive for businesses to use more recycled plastic in the production of packaging. In many cases, it will make using recycled plastic the most cost-effective option. Following consultation, the Government concluded that a single threshold will make the tax simpler for businesses to administer, minimise the compliance risks associated with multiple threshold levels and reduce the risk of lowering incentives for some types of packaging to include more recycled plastic.

As with all tax policy, the Government will continue to keep the plastic packaging tax under review, including the level of the tax, to ensure that it remains effective in increasing the use of recycled plastic. As I pointed out when discussing the previous set of new clauses tabled by Opposition Members, given the substantive information already published and the fact that limited new information is likely to be available before the tax is introduced, six months after the passage of the Bill would not be the right time to conduct and publish a review into the impacts of the recycled threshold for chargeable packaging components. The Government agree that it is important to understand the efficacy and impacts of the plastic packaging tax, but given that these issues have been previously considered and will be kept under review, the Government do not think that new clause 12 is necessary.

In conclusion, this group of clauses define key terms needed for the plastic packaging tax to work. They will be supported by secondary legislation and guidance, to provide further clarity on these terms.

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 48 to 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 51

Plastic packaging components intended for export

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 52 and 53 stand part.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Clauses 51 to 53 set out the circumstances when plastic packaging tax can be deferred or exempted and when tax paid packaging is eligible for a tax credit. As I explained before, the rationale of the tax is to encourage the use of recycled plastic instead of new material within plastic packaging. To maximise the incentive for businesses to use recycled plastic, the Government, as a general rule, believe it is important to include types of plastic packaging even where it may be challenging to increase the level of recycled plastic. That will encourage further investment in the recycling infrastructure and innovation required to overcome these challenges.

These clauses provide for the deferral of PPT and the provision of tax credits for packaging that is exported. They also exempt packaging used in the immediate packaging of licensed human medicines; aircraft, ship and train stores; and packaging used to transport imported goods. I will go through the rationale for each of these in turn. These and other clauses in the plastic packaging tax legislation use the term “plastic packaging component”. However, for ease, from this point onwards I will use the term “plastic packaging” instead.

Clause 51 sets out that plastic packaging imported into or manufactured in the UK that is intended for export within 12 months is not chargeable. Based on consultation feedback, the clause requires that the export must be made within 12 months of when a plastic packaging component is manufactured or imported. The packaging must always have been intended for export. This relief will not apply to transport packaging used to export goods such as plastic pallets and wrap, given the administrative challenges of tracking and evidencing that this packaging has been exported. Clause 52 provides for exemptions from PPT for certain plastic packaging.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I apologise for my late arrival, Sir Gary; I was held up in another Committee. Could the Minister expand more on the rationale behind exempting plastic packaging that is manufactured for export? The whole problem with plastics is that plastics that are manufactured here end up in the stomachs of animals in the south Atlantic and the south Pacific. Has she considered, for example, exempting only materials being exported to countries where it is known that there is a similar tax system in place when they are imported? I can understand that we do not want a double tax if the plastic is being exported to a country where there is also an import tax, but is she concerned that the environmental impact of the tax will be reduced if companies can manufacture this stuff and then export it anywhere in the world without having to pay the tax?

14:45

[Kemi Badenoch]

We have considered extensively the issue around managing export and one of the things that we did not want to do is to disadvantage UK companies, which would be competing with companies that did not have to pay a similar tax. This measure will encourage other countries into which plastic is being imported to have their own regimes, which would make sure that we have a balanced global system. So, that is why. I think the hon. Gentleman is speaking specifically on the export of packaging, rather than on transport packaging, which is what I was actually talking about.

I think I have said this before, but I will repeat it just in case I did not. This relief will not apply to transport packaging used to export goods, such as plastic pallets and wrap, given the administrative challenges of tracking and evidencing that the packaging has been exported. That is still on clause 51.

Clause 52 provides for exemptions from the plastic packaging tax for certain plastic packaging. The clause exempts transport packaging used to import goods to the UK. There are limited records of transport packaging used on imports, such as pallets, crates and pallet wrap, and the importer will often have little to no control over, or knowledge about, the amount or type of transport packaging used. As a result, the Government believe that the burden of including this packaging in the scope of the tax would be disproportionate to the environmental impact of the packaging for both businesses and HMRC.

Clause 52 also exempts aircraft, ship and train stores, as defined under section 57 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. This is similar to the operation of other taxes, notably excise duties that offer relief for stores on aircraft, ship and train stores, where products will be sold for retail or consumed on board.

Finally, clause 52 sets out a narrow exemption for plastic packaging used in the immediate packaging of licensed human medicines. Testing requirements mean there are greater barriers to including recycled plastic in this packaging, which go beyond sourcing concerns for other packaging such as food contact packaging. As a result, the tax may have unavoidable impacts on patients and vulnerable people. The Government recognise that this is a complex and difficult issue, but based on evidence that has been provided we are confident that it is feasible to operate this exemption.

The Government have carefully considered the case for providing exemptions for other types of packaging where it is challenging to include recycled plastic. The Government believe that including these types of packaging maintains the incentive to find new ways to overcome these challenges, but will keep exemptions from the tax under review. Clause 52 includes a power to create further exemptions from the tax where appropriate.

Clause 53 introduces powers for the Government to make regulations for tax credit where a person has already paid PPT on the packaging. This credit would be available where packaging is subsequently exported from the UK. That will support the competitiveness of UK businesses selling their products abroad. The credit would also be available where the packaging is subsequently converted into a different packaging component and prevents the tax from being charged twice. The Government will provide further guidance about when the tax is due, to minimise the circumstances where credit for subsequent conversion is necessary.

In conclusion and to reiterate, to maximise the incentive for businesses to use recycled plastic, the Government believe that, as a general rule, it is important to include types of plastic packaging even where it may be challenging to increase the level of recycled plastic. However, these clauses ensure that UK manufacturers are not disadvantaged by having to pay the tax on exports. They also provide exemptions to prevent risk to human health, to ensure similar treatment of aircraft, ship and train stores to that of other taxes, and where the administrative burden of controlling transport packaging used on imported goods would be disproportionate to the environmental benefits.

I therefore move that these clauses stand part of the Bill.

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

As we are now getting into some of the more technical details of the plastic packaging tax, I shall keep my remarks brief.

Clause 52 makes a number of sensible exemptions from the tax, including for packaging of medicines or other medical products. We welcome this exemption, of course, but it would be good to have reassurance from the Minister that the list of exemptions will be kept as short as possible. Clause 53 introduces tax credits for situations in which a person becomes no longer liable to pay the tax. At this point, could the Minister confirm that HMRC will have the resources that it needs to undertake the considerable administration involved in this new tax?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I think that I can reassure the hon. Lady on those points. We have kept the exemptions as small as possible. Industry would have liked there to be many more exemptions, but we think that this is the right place. And we of course recognise that HMRC requires resources for any new regulations. That is something that we continue to address, as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will attest.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 52 and 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54

The register

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss that clauses 55 to 58 stand part.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Clauses 54 to 58 make provision and set out the registration requirements for businesses liable to plastic packaging tax—or PPT, as it will henceforth be known—including the threshold that businesses must exceed before they are required to register for the tax. As I set out in my previous remarks, the tax applies to UK manufacturers of plastic packaging and importers of packaging. The Government announced at Budget 2020 that PPT would exclude businesses that manufacture or import less than 10 tonnes of plastic packaging. The Government believe that, by taking this approach, we will retain the vast majority of plastic packaging within the scope of the tax, while limiting the disproportionate burden on small business. The Government still expect businesses below the de minimis threshold to work towards increasing the recycled plastic content in their packaging.

Clauses 54 and 55 require HMRC to keep a register for the purposes of administering the tax, and establish the circumstances in which manufacturers and importers are liable to be registered. These clauses set out two tests to determine whether a person will exceed the de minimis threshold in either the coming 30 days, the forward look test, or over the past 12 months, the backward look test. This is a similar approach to that for other taxes, for example the VAT de minimis threshold, which is well tested. Packaging imported or manufactured in the UK before 1 April 2022 will not count towards either test.

Clause 56 provides for the period within which a person must notify HMRC of their liability to register for the tax. It also allows HMRC to make regulations about the information required and how it is provided. Clauses 57 and 58 provide for when a registration can be cancelled and corrected. HMRC may deregister a person if it is satisfied that the person was never liable to the tax, or has not been liable for 12 months. Clause 58 also allows HMRC to make further regulations regarding corrections of the register.

These clauses provide the essential framework for the administration and registration of businesses liable for the tax. The inclusion of a de minimis threshold ensures that the tax captures businesses only where the revenue and environmental benefit exceed the administrative burden of the tax. I therefore urge that the clauses stand part of the Bill.

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

Again, I have relatively little to say on the clauses, which in this case relate to registration. I do note that firms do not have to register or pay the tax if they manufacture or import less than 10 tonnes of plastic packaging. Is the Minister concerned that that is quite a sharp threshold, whereby producing just over 10 tonnes could bring a firm into the scope of the tax? Has the Treasury given any consideration to a more gradual threshold? Also—I am struggling to talk, because I have a mask on my face—let me ask the Minister what monitoring will be undertaken to ensure that all the individuals and firms that are required to be on the register are in fact registered?

[Alison Thewliss]

In practical terms, how many additional staff will be brought into HMRC to deal with compliance? Does the Exchequer Secretary have an estimate of the cost to the Government? Is there any estimate of the cost to firms of complying with the additional paperwork? Firms are already having to do quite a lot of additional paperwork following Brexit.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I believe that the first question from the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead was about avoidance risk because of where we have set the de minimis threshold. As with other taxes, the Government intend to implement measures to prevent abuse—including anti-avoidance measures covered in later clauses, which I will come to—and, where appropriate, to enable HMRC to take action to tackle the artificial splitting of a business. Connected persons will also be treated as a single organisation in assessing whether they exceed the de minimis threshold.

On business readiness, awareness and the amount of support and guidance provided, which the hon. Member for Glasgow Central referred to, we have consulted extensively to ensure that businesses are ready. We have been discussing the measure for several years now, as the hon. Lady will remember from previous Finance Bills; it will be introduced in 2022. We are raising awareness through consulting on the tax, including through the technical consultation on draft legislation and through work with industry, which will help us to ensure that the regulations are fit and ready.

On administrative cost, we think that 20,000 manufacturers and importers of plastic packaging will be affected by PPT. For plastic packaging manufactured in the UK, the manufacturer must register for and pay the tax; for plastic packaging imported into the UK, the person on whose behalf the packaging is imported must register and pay. They will usually be the consignee on import documentation, but where a consignee or co-signee can demonstrate that they are acting on behalf of another business that owns the goods, as in the case of freight forwarders, the owner must register an account for the tax.

We have looked at all the measures to ensure that businesses are ready and that costs are proportionate, and we feel that we have struck the right balance.

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

I appreciate that the Government are looking into this to ensure that businesses are ready, but I would like a bit more clarification on what they are doing to monitor that businesses are registered.

[Kemi Badenoch]

That is a point that we will come to in later clauses.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 54 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 55 to 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59

Notices imposing secondary or joint and several liability

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 9 be the Ninth schedule to the Bill.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Clause 59 and schedule 9 set out secondary liability and joint and several liability for the plastic packaging tax. As with any tax, there is a risk of fraud and non-payment; the Bill introduces measures to enable HMRC to effectively tackle non-compliance.

Clause 59 will introduce secondary liability notices and joint and several liability notices. Schedule 9 contains powers to make a person operating with non-compliant businesses jointly or severally liable for the tax, or hold them secondarily liable where the tax has not been paid. While secondary liability is retrospective, joint and several liability is prospective; a secondary liability notice makes a person liable for tax that has previously not been paid, whereas a joint and several liability notice makes the person liable for future tax after the notice is given. Both notices will work in tandem to enable HMRC to tackle non-compliance with the PPT through recovery of the tax from other people in the supply chain, as is common in other tax regimes.

Use of the provisions will be limited to situations in which a person knows or ought to have known that tax should be paid, but where it has not been paid or is at risk of not being paid, on chargeable plastic packaging. This includes situations in which a person has previously been notified by HMRC of non-compliance by another person in their supply chain. Decisions in respect of secondary liability and joint and several liability notices, such as their issue and revocation, will be appealable to tribunal and may also be reviewed by HMRC.

Secondary liability and joint and several liability are essential compliance tools that enable HMRC to recover unpaid tax from another person in the supply chain when certain conditions are met. They have been successfully used in other taxes to ensure compliance.

00:00

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

Clause 59 and schedule 9 make provision for secondary liability or joint and several liability, as mentioned by the Minister. We do support these measures to prevent the avoidance of this tax by companies, but concerns have been raised by the Chartered Institute of Taxation and others that additional administrative and financial burdens for businesses may arise out of this joint liability. Businesses in the supply chain, including retailers and manufacturers of products that use plastic packaging, will not necessarily know whether the supplier of plastic packaging has accounted for the appropriate amount of tax. Can the Minister reassure us that there will be a straightforward way for businesses to check that the correct amount of tax has been paid and that they do not bear joint and several liability?

[Kemi Badenoch]

On that question, there is general support for this proposal, on the basis that it will be applied only where a person knew or had reasonable grounds to suspect that the tax had not been accounted for. For example, if an overseas seller confirms that the tax is not due and the business purchasing the goods in the UK has taken reasonable steps to verify this, it will not be held liable.

This approach is used effectively in other tax provisions; it is not a new thing that we will be doing. Businesses will be considered secondarily liable or jointly and severally liable for the tax in certain situations only where they knew, or had reasonable grounds to suspect, the tax had not been paid. The Government will continue to work with the sector on what constitutes due diligence in establishing whether the tax has been properly accounted for, and will publish further guidance on this.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 59 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 9 agreed to.

Clause 60

Measurement of weight etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 61 stand part.

That schedule 10 be the Tenth schedule to the Bill.

Clause 62 stand part.

That schedule 11 be the Eleventh schedule to the Bill.

Clauses 63 and 64 stand part.

That schedule 12 be the Twelfth schedule to the Bill.

Clauses 65 to 67 stand part.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I now turn to clauses 60 to 67. Among other things, they provide for how HMRC will enforce and administer the tax, which was the question asked by the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead.

These are technical clauses that grant powers to make regulations on the detailed operation of certain aspects of the tax. The amount of tax due is determined by the weight of the plastic packaging component, so a provision is needed to ensure that the weights used are accurate and can be assessed, to ensure that all businesses liable for the tax are treated fairly.

It is also essential to have mechanisms in place to collect the tax from businesses and to take action to recover tax when it is not paid, as required by the legislation. To ensure that the revenue is protected, businesses will need to keep appropriate records in respect of their tax liability. These provisions grant powers to set out what records they are required to retain and for how long, so all relevant information is available in the event of a later query.

The measures in schedule 12 are necessary to ensure that HMRC can take samples of plastic packaging to verify that the right amount of tax is paid, share information with other named public bodies and take effective action to protect the revenue. Clause 65 enables HMRC to require a person to give security for the payment of any tax likely to be due, to protect the revenue in certain circumstances. Clauses 66 and 67 provide for the treatment of unincorporated bodies and for how anything required to be given to businesses liable to the tax is sent to them.

Clause 60 gives the commissioners of HMRC powers to make regulations setting out how the weight of plastic packaging will be measured and assessed for the purposes of the tax. The power will be used to require the weight of components to be taken as an average over a production run, and businesses will need to keep records of the measurements and calculations. There will be scope for businesses to agree methods of measurement with HMRC in particular cases. Where HMRC suspects that inaccurate weights are being used, it will be able to inspect and weigh samples of the packaging components, to use assumptions about weights if necessary and to override any agreement with this information.

Clause 61 and schedule 10 give the commissioners powers to make regulations covering record keeping, the mechanics of making tax returns and payments, and recovering tax owed. These powers mirror the powers in this area for other taxes and will be used in the same way.

Clause 62 introduces schedule 11, which establishes which decisions are appealable. It sets out a system of reviews and appeals using procedures long established in the tax system and the existing tribunals system. As with other taxes, businesses contesting a decision or assessment will have the right to a review by HMRC and an appeal to a tribunal, should they wish to pursue the matter.

Clause 63 grants regulation-making powers to require businesses to keep specified records for a specified period that does not exceed six years. This is consistent with other taxes. The powers will be used to require businesses to keep records relating to the calculation of their liability for PPT. The records will include the weight and the quantities of materials used in the packaging.

Clause 64 introduces schedule 12. The first part of schedule 12 provides for someone authorised by the commissioners to take samples of plastic packaging where this is necessary to ensure that tax is being properly accounted for, to share and receive information from other public bodies and to provide information to the courts on registration and returns, and for evidence to remain acceptable when those providing it have had their penalties reduced for doing so. For example, HMRC may want to test a sample of packaging to validate the evidence provided about its weight and make-up.

The second part of the schedule provides for HMRC to share information obtained in connection with PPT with other named public bodies to assist them in their functions, and to receive information from the same bodies to assist with the administration of the plastic packaging tax. The final part of the schedule provides for the courts to accept certificates from the commissioners indicating whether a business is registered and whether returns have been made as sufficient proof of these matters. The schedule also makes provision that where evidence of non-compliance is provided by a taxpayer who has themselves been subject to a non-compliance penalty, that evidence will remain valid, even if the latter’s penalty is to be reduced as a result of their assistance in protecting the revenue.

Clause 65 gives a power to make regulations requiring security to be provided against liability for PPT, for the purposes of protecting revenue. We do not intend to use this power initially, but it is important that it is provided in case it is required to act against fraud in the future. Clause 66 allows HMRC to make regulations for determining who is responsible for fulfilling the obligations of unincorporated bodies in respect of PPT. Clause 67 provides that anything required to be given to a person as part of the requirements for PPT is given to that person or their representative by post to that person’s last known address.

These clauses and schedules set out important mechanics for the technical operation of the tax and for recovering tax due to the Crown. I therefore move that they stand part of the Bill.

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

Again, these are largely technical clauses on the administration and enforcement of the plastic packaging tax. Most of the clauses give the commissioners the power to make regulations—for example, on how the weight of the packaging is to be determined and how records should be kept. My only point here—we have tabled amendments on this that we will come to later—is that we believe that the Government should consult fully with relevant businesses and environmental groups before making such regulations. We also believe that all such regulations should be subject to proper scrutiny in Parliament. That will ensure that the Government have the best chance of making sure that the tax works effectively and with the minimum additional burden for businesses, which I am sure we all want.

[The Chair]

I look forward to coming to those points later on this afternoon.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 60 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 10 agreed to.

Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 11 agreed to.

Clauses 63 and 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 

Schedule 12 agreed to.

Clauses 65 to 67 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 

Clause 68

Statements for business customers

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Kemi Badenoch]

The clause sets out requirements relating to the inclusion of a PPT statement on certain invoices and allows for further regulations specifying what the statement must contain. In consultations, stakeholders told us that customers often have influence over the specification and design of plastic packaging. Including the amount of PPT on invoices will help encourage the behavioural shift towards using more recycled plastic. It will also increase the visibility of the tax and show businesses how much more they are paying for their plastic packaging by not switching to using more recycled plastics. The clause assists with the environmental behaviour shift that is sought by the tax, and I therefore recommend that it stands part of the Bill.

[Peter Grant]

I have just a few points on the clause. I can certainly understand the thinking behind it, but I note that it applies when the goods are first supplied—it applies to the person who is liable to pay the tax. Has the Minister considered what happens if there is a chain of supply but the intermediaries do not do anything that makes them liable to pay the tax? My reading of the clause is that the final user—the final customer—does not necessarily get the statement of how much tax has been paid. If the intention is to affect the behaviour of not only the manufacturers but customers, we are missing a trick, in that the customer might not realise how much of the final cost has been covered in the plastic packaging tax.

My second point is very simple. Is it envisaged that the statement of plastic packaging tax would be required to be printed on the face of the invoice, or could it simply be attached as a separate document? It is not clear what the commissioners are likely to put into any regulations. My concern is partly that if it is required to be put on the face of the invoice, that potentially requires quite a lot of changes to software by companies that use accounting software. Alternatively, if it is supplied as a separate document, are there not enforcement difficulties? It could be difficult to establish afterwards that it was not attached, whereas if somebody provides an invoice without accounting for VAT, it is quite clear to anybody that the requirement to give a VAT invoice has not been complied with. Have those two issues been considered by the Government in the precise wording of the clause?

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

The clause sets out the requirement for the PPT statement on certain invoices. The only point I want to make is to urge the Treasury and HMRC to work with businesses to ensure that they understand the requirement and implement it with the least burden possible.

[Kemi Badenoch]

On the question of liability, businesses that are liable for the tax will be required to include the amount of plastic packaging tax on the sales invoices to their customers. This will make the tax visible and help incentivise customers to choose recycled plastic packaging. The Government are not requiring the amount of PPT to be included on sales invoices further down the supply chain, such as the invoice from a wholesaler to a retailer, as such customers have less influence over the type of packaging and it may disproportionately increase the burden on businesses. However, businesses further down the supply chain can still choose to show the tax previously paid on their sales invoices.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 68 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 69

Tax representatives of non-resident taxpayers

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Kemi Badenoch]

The clause is about tax representatives of non-resident taxpayers. It enables HMRC to make regulations requiring non-UK residential taxpayers to appoint tax representatives. The regulations may also include administrative matters—for example, provisions on the notification of being a non-resident taxpayer and naming tax representatives on the register against those whom they represent. The clause will help to ensure that liable overseas businesses register and comply with the tax. I therefore commend that it stand part of the Bill.

15:14

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

Clause 69 gives commissioners the power to make provisions requiring that every non-resident taxpayer appoint a person resident in the UK to act as a tax representative for the plastic packaging tax.

The Chartered Institute of Taxation made a number of comments about the clause in its briefing. It would like future regulations to consider whether exceptions could apply—for example, if the non-resident taxpayer has a history of a prescribed period of compliant behaviour with other UK taxes, or has an internationally recognised accreditation, such as being an authorised economic operator. It also points out that it could be common for non-resident taxpayers to outsource the completion of UK tax returns to UK tax agents to ensure good compliance with UK obligations. It should be noted, though, that for the majority of UK tax agents it will not be usual business practice to act with joint and several liability for the taxes that they administer, so the requirement to be a tax representative would be a barrier to taking on such business.

Where a non-resident business has outsourced its VAT or customs duty compliance to a UK tax agent, it would appear sensible to similarly outsource the PPT compliance to the same tax agent, as they will have the details of the imports into the UK. However, the mandatory tax representation responsibilities will be a barrier to that. That will be an increased opportunity for areas where UK tax compliance must be provided by separate tax agents and tax representatives.

On subsection (8)(a), the Chartered Institute of Taxation would like to see greater explanation of what constitutes an “established place of business” in future regulations. For example, if a large non-resident business has a presence in the UK, be it a large or small sales office, will the presence be enough to remove the obligation to appoint a UK tax representative? Businesses will require clarity on the definition of an “established place of business” with regard to this tax.

[Kemi Badenoch]

In terms of the requirements for businesses without a presence in the UK to appoint a UK-based representative, whether those requirements will work, and the additional burden that the hon. Lady refers to, the person on whose behalf the packaging is imported will be liable for the tax. The Government do not envisage that many businesses without a UK presence will be liable for PPT. The Government therefore intend to commence but not exercise the power initially. However, including the power in the Bill means that we can protect the revenue and maintain a level playing field for UK-compliant businesses if there is evidence of significant non-compliance with the tax by overseas businesses. The additional burden will therefore arise only if it is required to ensure compliance, protecting the revenue and ensuring a level playing field for UK-based businesses. In the absence of exercising that power, businesses without a presence in the UK will need to register for the tax in the same way as UK-based businesses. I am sure that HMRC officials will have taken note of some of the further questions, which I think will be addressed during later consultations.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 69 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 70

Adjustment of contracts

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Clause 70 provides for businesses to adjust existing contracts in respect of the plastic packaging tax. That covers two scenarios: first, adjusting the payment amount for a contract where PPT previously was not factored, or there is a change in the tax chargeable; and, secondly, adjusting a contract where chargeable plastic packaging is further processed into different packaging.

The latter case recognises the complexity of supply chains and avoids a double charge of tax. The Government expect that to be used in a very limited number of cases, given that the tax applies to substantially finished packaging. The clause helps businesses to take account of the tax within existing contracts. I therefore commend that it stand part of the Bill.

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

The clause is a technical measure that provides for the adjustment of contracts in respect of the plastic packaging tax. We have no questions for the Minister on that.

[The Chair]

That is what we like to hear.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 70 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 71

Groups of Companies

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 13 be the Thirteenth schedule to the Bill.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Clause 71 and schedule 13 concern groups of companies. To make the reporting requirements for the tax less burdensome, clause 71 and schedule 13 set out when and how two or more corporate bodies may be treated as a group in respect of the plastic packaging tax. When used, PPT is charged to the representative of the group, rather than all members individually. This includes where a group member is found liable through secondary or joint and several liability. Schedule 13 contains further details on how the provision will operate, for example defining who is eligible to apply for group treatment and the limited grounds on which Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs may refuse an application. The clause and schedule provide an administrative saving to businesses that choose this option and are eligible.

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

The clause and schedule allow two or more corporate bodies to form a group for plastic packaging tax purposes, so they can report and account for the plastic packaging tax as a single body with joint and several liability. I just want to know whether the Minister had seen the submission from the Chartered Institute of Taxation on this issue. It points out that the requirement for a group member to be a corporate body for VAT grouping rules was changed by schedule 18 of the Finance Act 2019, which extended it to individuals and partnerships that control other bodies in a VAT group with effect from 1 November 2019. Could the Minister explain why the updated rules for VAT do not apply to the plastic packaging tax?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I am afraid that I have not seen the note to which the hon. Lady refers so I am not able to answer the question, but I am sure we can get an answer from officials before the next sitting.

[The Chair]

Happy with that?

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

Yes.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 71 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 13 agreed to.

Clause 72

Prevention of artificial separation of business activities: directions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 73 stand part.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Clauses 72 and 73 prevent businesses artificially splitting in order to come under the tax’s 10 tonne per year registration threshold and avoiding paying PPT. The clauses protect PPT against avoidance in the form of the business artificially splitting to come under the tax’s 10 tonne per year de minimis threshold. Where HMRC determines that such avoidance is happening, the clauses allow it to issue a direction that means the persons named are treated as a single person liability for tax. The clauses are important for preventing attempts to circumvent the tax.

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

Clauses 72 and 73 introduce measures to prevent avoidance of plastic packaging tax by artificially separating business activities. We welcome the measures to prevent avoidance of this tax.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 72 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 74

Death, incapacity or insolvency of person carrying on a business: regulations

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 75 stand part.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Clauses 74 and 75 set out how the tax is dealt with in the event of a liable business changing ownership, or the unfortunate circumstances of an owner dying, or becoming incapacitated or insolvent. The clauses provide for further regulations to be made that will deal with how changes in a business due to a change of ownership, death, incapacity or insolvency are handled within the tax. Such provisions are a common part of many taxes and are important to ensure the protection of revenues owed to the Crown. The clauses are a necessary feature of most taxes needed to help the tax function properly. I therefore ask that they stand part of the Bill.

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

Clauses 74 and 75 make provisions for situations in which businesses are transferred. We welcome these sensible clauses, which I believe were suggested by the Chartered Institute of Taxation during an earlier consultation.

[The Chair]

Why cannot Parliament always be like this?

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 74 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 76

Isle of Man: import and export of chargeable plastic packaging components

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Clause 76 sets out the tax treatment of plastic packaging imported from or exported to the Isle of Man. For imports from the Isle of Man to the UK, if in the future the Isle of Man were to have a corresponding tax on plastic packaging, and the Isle of Man PPT rate is equal to or greater than the UK rate, the UK tax is not charged. For imports where the Isle of Man rate is lower than the UK rate, the UK tax is charged as the difference between the two rates. Where there is no corresponding Isle of Man tax, the UK tax is charged at the full rate on imports to the UK. Where plastic packaging is exported from the UK to the Isle of Man, these are not treated as exports for the purposes of the UK tax. This clause provides clarity on tax treatment of imports and exports to and from the Isle of Man.

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

Clause 76 relates to the import and export of plastic packaging in respect of the Isle of Man, as the Minister said. Once again, this seems like a sensible clause, and we have no questions for the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 76 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 77

Fraudulent evasion

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 78 to 80 stand part.

That schedule 14 be the Fourteenth schedule to the Bill.

Clause 81 stand part.

[Kemi Badenoch]

These clauses and the schedule set out a number of criminal offences in respect of fraudulent activities connected with the plastic packaging tax and the penalties and proceedings associated with these. It is essential that any tax is applied fairly and collected from all those liable to pay it. These clauses make provisions for necessary sanctions for non-compliance with the requirements for PPT, in a manner consistent with those applied in other taxes.

Clause 77 creates a criminal offence for knowingly being involved in the fraudulent evasion of PPT, including through fraudulent claiming of tax credits or repayments, and sets out the maximum penalties for doing so. Clause 78 creates a criminal offence for supplying false information and documents, with an intention to deceive, and sets out the maximum penalties for doing so. Clause 79 creates a criminal offence for conduct involving evasion or misstatements in respect of obligations under, and liability for, PPT. The specifics of those offences need not be known, and maximum penalties are set out.

Clause 80 and schedule 14 make provision to collect penalties for specified breaches of the requirements of PPT, such as those on record keeping obligations and requirements to keep a registration up to date. Clause 81 provides that the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 applies in relation to PPT offences, in the same way that it applies to offences under the Customs and Excise Acts.

These measures are necessary both as a deterrent against avoidance and evasion of the payment of PPT, and to ensure that proportionate action can be taken where offences are committed. This is the case as elsewhere in the tax system. I therefore move that these clauses and the schedule stand part of the Bill.

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

Clauses 77 to 81 and schedule 14 outline offences and penalties attached to the PPT, including new criminal offences of being involved in the fraudulent evasion of the PPT or supplying false information with an intention to deceive, as the Minister mentioned. We have already discussed tax evasion at considerable length during the various stages of the Bill, so I shall simply say that we support these measures and hope to see them robustly enforced.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 77 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 78 to 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 14 agreed to.

Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 82

Minor and consequential amendments

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

15:30

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

That schedule 15 be the Fifteenth schedule to the Bill.

Clause 83 stand part.

Amendment 22, in clause 84, page 47, line 20, leave out subsections (5) to (11) and insert—

“(4A) Any statutory instrument containing regulations under this Part may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”

Amendment 21, in clause 84, page 48, line 3, at end insert—

“(12) Before making regulations under this Part the Commissioners must consult with—

(a) industry representatives,

(b) environmental NGOs, and

(c) any other relevant individuals or organisations.

(13) Regulations made under this Part must pay regard to the principles of waste hierarchy and circular economy.”

Clauses 84 and 85 stand part.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Clauses 82 to 85 and schedule 15 enable minor amendments to be made to other legislation as a result of the plastic packaging tax. They also enable regulations to be made in respect of PPT. Clause 82 simply introduces schedule 15, which allows minor amendments to be made to other areas of legislation. Primarily, they make provision for certain existing penalties to apply to persons who fail to comply with their obligations for PPT.

Clause 83 sets out the meaning of various key terms used in the Bill relating to PPT. Clauses 84 and 85 allow regulations to be made in respect of PPT. They set out general provisions about making these regulations, including where they are subject to affirmative procedures in the House of Commons. They also give the Treasury the power by regulations to appoint the commencement date of clauses in the Bill relating to PPT.

Amendments 21 and 22, tabled by the hon. Members for Ealing North, for Erith and Thamesmead, and for Manchester, Withington, would require all regulations in part 2 of the Bill to be subject to the affirmative procedure and mandate that the Government consult industry representatives, environmental NGOs and other relevant organisations on all the regulations. I have previously outlined, when addressing their amendment to clause 47, how the Government have consulted and continue to consult with industry representatives and environmental groups, so I shall not go over that again.

With regard to amendment 22, which would make all the regulations in this part of the Bill subject to the affirmative procedure, it is right that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise legislation, but it is also right that we find an appropriate balance, given the volume of legislation that this House must make. The Government have therefore selected the most fundamental regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure, which includes regulations that impact on the scope of the tax. We must also not forget that this House has Commons financial privilege, and it is important that we maintain that. I therefore strongly contest the amendment on those grounds. These final clauses and schedule are general in nature.

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

It is good to have reached the end of the plastic packaging tax clauses. I will speak briefly to our two amendments. Amendment 22 would amend clause 84 to improve scrutiny by making all regulations subject to the affirmative procedure and to prevent use of the made affirmative procedure. Amendment 21 would require consultation on all regulations and require that, in exercising powers, regard must be had to the principles of the waste hierarchy and the need to promote the circular economy.

These amendments simply make the point that I made earlier: much of the detail of this tax will be determined by regulations, and the Government must ensure that they are open to as much scrutiny as possible. The packaging industry will need to be consulted at all stages to ensure that the technical details of the tax work effectively. Environmental groups also need to be consulted, to ensure that the tax fulfils its purpose: to encourage the use of recycled plastic, to increase levels of recycling, to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill and to protect our natural environment. I hope that the Government will take on board the points we have made in Committee as they take this forward in the next year.

[Alison Thewliss]

I very much agree with the Opposition’s amendments. It is clear that, even with all the consultation that the Government say they have done and all the extensive behind-the-scenes work, concerns will still be raised. It is important that, as we move forward with the regulations and other things, we continue the scrutiny in this House to ensure that we get it right and that those who have concerns about the policy can raise them through elected Members in a public forum. I very much agree with that.

I also very much agree with the point relating to environmental non-governmental organisations and other relevant organisations that may still have concerns that have not yet been addressed, despite the extensive discussions that we have had this afternoon. Involving them as we go forward is crucial.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I note the points that have been made. The fact is that no single set of policies will please consumers, businesses and environmental NGOs, but we think we have struck the right balance, and I hope the Opposition will not press their amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 82 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 15 agreed to.

Clauses 83 to 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(David Rutley.)

15:37

Adjourned till Tuesday 27 April at twenty-five minutes past Nine o’clock.

Written evidence reported to the House

FB 01 Association of Taxation Technicians (ATT)— Clause 15—Annual Investment Allowance

FB 02 Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT)— Clauses 18-20—Reliefs for Business

FB 03 Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT)— Clauses 21-29—Employment Income and Pensions (various measures)

FB 04 Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT)—Part 2 of the Bill—Plastic Packaging Tax

FB 05 Association of Taxation Technicians (ATT)— Clause 112

FB 06 Association of Taxation Technicians (ATT)— Clause 113

FB 07 Low Incomes Tax Reform Group— Clauses 112-113—Penalties

FB 08 Low Incomes Tax Reform Group— Clause 122—Financial Institution Notices

FB 09 British Plastics Federation

Finance (No.2) Bill (First sitting)

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Dame Angela Eagle, † Sir Gary Streeter

† Bacon, Gareth (Orpington) (Con)

† Badenoch, Kemi (Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury)

† Buchan, Felicity (Kensington) (Con)

† Coutinho, Claire (East Surrey) (Con)

† Eshalomi, Florence (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)

Grant, Peter (Glenrothes) (SNP)

† Higginbotham, Antony (Burnley) (Con)

† Jones, Andrew (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)

† Marson, Julie (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)

† Murray, James (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)

† Norman, Jesse (Financial Secretary to the Treasury)

† Oppong-Asare, Abena (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)

† Owen, Sarah (Luton North) (Lab)

† Russell, Dean (Watford) (Con)

† Rutley, David (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

† Smith, Jeff (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)

† Thewliss, Alison (Glasgow Central) (SNP)

Chris Stanton, Jo Dodd, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Thursday 22 April 2021

(Morning)

[Sir Gary Streeter in the Chair]

Finance (No.2) Bill

(Except Clauses 1 to 5; Clauses 6 to 14 and Schedule 1; Clauses 24 to 26; Clause 28; Clause 30 and Schedule 6; Clauses 31 to 33; Clause 36 and Schedule 7; Clause 40; Clause 41; Clause 86; Clauses 87 to 89 and Schedules 16 and 17; Clauses 90 and 91; Clauses 92 to 96 and Schedule 18; Clause 97 and Schedule 19; Clauses 109 to 111 and Schedules 21 and 22; Clause 115 and Schedule 27; Clauses 117 to 121 and Schedules 29 to 32; Clauses 128 to 130; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to: the impact of any provision on the financial resources of families or to the subject matter of Clauses 1 to 5, 24 to 26, 28, 31 to 33, 40 and 86; the subject matter of Clauses 6 to 14 and Schedule 1; the impact of any provision on regional economic development; tax avoidance or evasion; the subject matter of Clauses 87 to 89 and Schedules 16 and 17 and Clauses 90 and 91; the subject matter of Clauses 92 to 96 and Schedule 18, Clause 97 and Schedule 19 and Clauses 128 to 130)

11:30

[The Chair]

Welcome, everyone. We are going to have a lot of fun together over the next few days. Before we begin, I remind hon. Members to observe social distancing and to sit only in the places that are clearly marked. I also remind Members that, in line with the House of Commons Commission decision, face coverings should be worn in Committee unless people are speaking or medically exempt. I hope not to need to suspend the sitting to achieve compliance with social distancing requirements. Please switch electronic devices to silent mode. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. The Hansard reporters would be grateful if Members could email any electronic copies of their speaking notes to [e-mail]. Jackets, as you will have noticed, may be removed.

Ordered,

That—

(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 11.30 am on Thursday 22 April) meet—

(a) at 2.00 pm on Thursday 22 April;

(b) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 27 April;

(c) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 29 April;

(d) at 4.30 pm and 7.00 pm on Tuesday 4 May;

(e) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 6 May;

(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 15 to 18; Schedule 2; Clause 19; Schedules 3 and 4; Clauses 20 to 23; Clause 27; Clause 29; Schedule 5; Clauses 34 and 35; Clause 37; Schedule 8; Clauses 38 to 39; Clauses 42 to 59; Schedule 9; Clauses 60 and 61; Schedule 10; Clause 62; Schedule 11; Clauses 63 and 64; Schedule 12; Clauses 65 to 71; Schedule 13; Clauses 72 to 80; Schedule 14; Clauses 81 and 82; Schedule 15; Clauses 83 to 85; Clause 98; Schedule 20; Clauses 99 to 108; Clause 112; Schedules 23 and 24; Clause 113; Schedule 25; Clause 114; Schedule 26; Clause 116; Schedule 28; Clauses 122 to 124; Schedule 33; Clauses 125 to 127; Clauses 131 and 132; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;

(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 6 May.—(Jesse Norman.)

Resolved,

That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Jesse Norman.)

[The Chair]

Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be available on the Bill pages of the parliamentary website.

We will now begin our line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection and grouping list for today’s sittings is available in the room. The list shows how the selected amendments have been grouped for debate, and the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause or schedule to which the amendment relates.

Clause 15

Extension of temporary increase in annual investment allowance

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 15, page 9, line 16, at end insert—

“(3) In paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 13 of that Act—

(a) after ‘second straddling period is’ insert ‘the greater of (a)’ and

(b) after ‘of that sub-paragraph’ add ‘and (b) the amount (if any) by which the maximum allowance under section 51A of CAA 2001 had there been no temporary increase in the allowance exceeds the annual investment allowance qualifying expenditure incurred before 1 January 2022.’”

This amendment would amend the transitional provisions for the reversion of the AIA to £200,000 on 1 January 2022, to ensure that smaller businesses with lower levels of qualifying capital expenditure are not disadvantaged by having their effective AIA limit restricted to significantly less than £200,000 for a period.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Alison Thewliss]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Gary. This is a small technical amendment, on which we have received a representation from the Association of Taxation Technicians. Clause 15 extends the availability of the temporarily increased level of the annual investment allowance for a further year, to 31 December 2021. Although we appreciate that the maintenance of a high AIA will be broadly welcomed by eligible businesses, the wider picture has been, as I said on Second Reading, that the chopping and changing of AIA levels is unhelpful, as it adds complexity to the system and creates traps that can disadvantage some businesses.

Specifically, the transitional rules that apply when the AIA level reverts to £200,000 on 1 January 2022 could result in businesses having their effective AIA limit restricted to significantly less than £200,000 for a period. The businesses most likely to be hit by that are the businesses least likely to be able to benefit from the temporary increase in the AIA limit. There is an opportunity to amend the transitional provisions in order to ensure that smaller businesses with lower levels of qualifying capital expenditure are not actually disadvantaged by a temporary increase from which they will not benefit at all. I hope that the Minister will consider this amendment.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)]

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I look forward to many happy hours of digestion and deliberation on the Finance Bill in Public Bill Committee.

Clause 15 temporarily extends, as the hon. Member for Glasgow Central mentioned, the increased annual investment allowance of £1 million until 31 December 2021. If I may, I will give some background and then address the amendment.

The annual investment allowance, or AIA, provides businesses with an up-front incentive to invest. It allows them 100% same-year tax relief on qualifying plant and machinery investments, up to an annual limit, and simplifies tax for many taxpayers. The summer Budget of 2015 set the permanent level of AIA at £200,000 from 1 January 2016. At Budget 2018, the level was temporarily increased to £1 million for two years, from 1 January 2019. The measure that will be enacted by this clause was announced in November 2020. The changes made by clause 15 will apply across the UK. The £1 million AIA cap covers the plant and machinery expenditures of more than 99% of all businesses.

There were a forecasted 24.9 million AIA claims in 2019-20, compared with 18 million when the cap was last at its £200,000 limit. The higher AIA cap provides businesses with more up-front support, encourages them to bring forward investment and makes tax simpler for any business investing between £200,000 and £1 million. Extending the AIA cap to £1 million supports business confidence at a time when covid-related economic shocks have severely dampened business investment. It is interesting that Chris Sanger, head of tax policy at EY, said that this measure

“will be particularly helpful for UK manufacturing at a time when, thanks to the announcement of a vaccine, business confidence is returning.”

Amendment 15, tabled by Opposition Members, seeks to change long-standing arrangements that manage the transition from one level of AIA to another. It is important to note that the current arrangements have been used by the Finance Acts of 2011, 2014 and 2019. They are familiar and well understood, and any change would create additional cost for businesses.

The change proposed would also give a benefit to a small subset of firms that have a chargeable period that straddles the date at which the AIA reduces to £200,000. However, those firms also received a benefit at the point of transition to the new £1 million level of the AIA, and therefore the amendment would not, in our judgment, be fair. It also risks encouraging some businesses to delay investment, which many would not think is in the public interest at present. I therefore urge the Committee to reject the amendment.

Overall, the clause and the measure it will constitute were warmly received by businesses at the end of last year as part of the Government’s desire to support business during the pandemic.

[Alison Thewliss]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16

Meaning of “general decommissioning expenditure”

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. The clause makes changes to ensure that decommissioning expenditure incurred by oil and gas companies in anticipation of the approval of an abandonment programme, a condition imposed by the Secretary of State or an agreement made with the Secretary of State qualifies for decommissioning tax relief.

Companies operating oilfields in the UK and the UK continental shelf have always been required to decommission the wells and infrastructure at the end of a field’s life. The tax relief for decommissioning expenditure is an important part of the UK’s overall oil and gas fiscal regime, which is balanced to maximise economic recovery of the nation’s national resources while ensuring that the nation receives a fair return for those natural resources. The changes made by the clause will clarify that appropriate expenditure on decommissioning incurred in anticipation of the approval of an abandonment programme, a condition imposed by the Secretary of State or an agreement made with the Secretary of State qualifies for decommissioning tax relief.

The clause does not have any Exchequer costs and does not alter the original policy intent of decommissioning tax relief. It will provide certainty for the UK oil and gas sector, which supports approximately 260,000 jobs, around 40% of which are in Scotland, and which has paid approximately £350 billion in production taxes to date. The clause will provide certainty that all appropriate decommissioning expenditure qualifies for decommissioning tax relief.

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to be back in Parliament physically and to lead on a Public Bill Committee for the first time under your chairmanship, Sir Gary.

[The Chair]

Welcome back.

[James Murray]

You will not be saying that by the end, Sir Gary.

We recognise that this clause makes a largely technical amendment to the Capital Allowances Act 2001, meaning that certain types of expenditure incurred by oil and gas companies on decommissioning plant and machinery before the formal approval of an abandonment programme will qualify for decommissioning expenditure relief. We will not oppose the clause. However, I want to ask the Minister about subsection (9), which introduces a clawback mechanism. It seems to apply when the anticipated abandonment programme has not been approved and the anticipated condition has not been imposed by the Secretary of State, or an anticipated approval has not been given by the Secretary of State within a specified period—namely, five years from the last day of the accounting period during which the expenditure was incurred.

In such cases, there is an obligation on the beneficiary of the relief to notify Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs of the situation and to set out how any relevant returns are to be amended. Clearly, as with all tax reliefs, there is a risk that some companies might seek to exploit or use them inappropriately. I would therefore welcome the Exchequer Secretary setting out whether she thinks there is any potential risk of the relief being misused. If so, what actions will HMRC take to reduce the risk? What proactive investigations will HMRC make to verify that those taking advantage of the relief are doing so legitimately, and what penalties or other enforcement action will be taken if instances are uncovered where that is not the case?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. He raises an interesting point. We have been discussing industry’s concerns for some time over the lack of clarity on decommissioning expenses incurred prior to the approval of an abandonment programme. Industry already supports the measure. We consulted it on the draft legislation, and the clause takes account of comments received, particularly on the clawback mechanism that the hon. Gentleman refers to. We have now excluded the ongoing maintenance costs of assets waiting to be decommissioned from the clawback.

On clawbacks specifically, where expenditure is claimed on decommissioning in anticipation of an approval, the legislation allows five years for that approval to be in place before the clawback is triggered. We listened to industry’s comments during our consultation, and adjustments have been made to the clawback to exclude maintenance costs from the mechanism. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is responsible for overseeing decommissioning work on the UKCS. Where the anticipated approval condition or agreement is not approved by BEIS in the five-year period, it is appropriate for any relief to be clawed back. The legislation ensures that only legitimate decommissioning expenses qualify, and the clawback provides an important protection for the Exchequer.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17

Extensions of plant or machinery leases for reasons related to coronavirus

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Jesse Norman]

The clause makes provision for an easement for plant and machinery leases caught by anti-avoidance legislation when extended due to coronavirus. The easement has the effect of turning off the anti-avoidance legislation under specific circumstances. The reason for that is that HMRC has identified an issue where some plant or machinery leases could be adversely affected by the Government’s anti-avoidance legislation. This relates to specific circumstances where a lease is extended due to covid-19, and creates unexpected and unwelcome outcomes for many lessors and lessees. Therefore, at the Budget, the Government announced changes to ensure that the anti-avoidance mechanism is not unnecessarily triggered by legitimate commercial activity.

The measure will affect leases where a relevant change in consideration is implemented between 1 January 2020 and 30 June 2021. It is an easement, restoring eligibility to claim capital allowances to the position as originally intended immediately prior to the date of the change in consideration due under the lease. If not deemed appropriate, either party may choose not to apply this treatment, ensuring that no one will be left worse off by the change. The Government expect that the services, construction, manufacturing and agricultural sectors, in particular, will be positively affected by the changes.

The measure is important in assisting businesses that have been badly hit in their legitimate activity by the effects of the pandemic and in ensuring that they are not struck by unexpected tax charges. I therefore move that the clause stand part of the Bill.

[James Murray]

We recognise that the clause relates to the leasing of plant or machinery, and specifically to a situation where a lease of such machinery is extended due to coronavirus. Without this provision, such an extension could trigger anti-avoidance legislation, and we understand that the clause therefore amends relevant subsections relating to long and short leases in the Capital Allowances Act 2001, with the effect of switching of the anti-avoidance provision and returning the situation to what it would have been without coronavirus.

We understand that the need for the clause was raised by the Finance and Leasing Association, which represents 40% of relevant lessors in the UK, and that after consideration the Treasury agreed that the change for which the clause provides was needed. It will cover only covid-19-related lease extensions where anti-avoidance legislation is triggered from 1 January 2020 to 30 June 2021, as the Minister said.

11:44

Although we note that no public consultation was carried out on this matter, the clause’s effect on the public finances is negligible and is time limited during covid. The beneficiaries will be a small number of plant or machinery leaseholders, and the main stakeholder is the Finance and Leasing Association, which supports the clause. We therefore do not oppose its standing part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18

Temporary extension of periods to which trade losses may be carried back

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 16.

Amendment 2 in schedule 2, page 101, line 36, at end insert—

“(5A) Insert after Section 127(3A) of ITA 2007:

‘(3B) Sub-section (3A) does not apply to losses incurred in a UK furnished holiday lettings business in the tax years 2020/21 and 2021/22.’.”

This amendment would allow for the extend carry back rule to apply to losses incurred in UK furnished holiday letting businesses.

That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.

New clause 10—Review of effects of section 18 and schedule 2—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the impact of section 18 and schedule 2 of this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) A review under this section must estimate the expected impact of the provisions of section 18 and schedule 2 on—

(a) levels of tax avoidance,

(b) levels of tax evasion, and

(c) tax revenues.”

This new clause would require the Government to review the impact of the provisions of clause 18 and schedule 2 on tax avoidance and evasion and tax revenues.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the hon. Member for Ealing North for his remarks in support of the previous clause. Clause 18 and schedule 2 make changes to the loss relief rules for businesses by extending the loss carry-back rule from one year to three years for corporation tax and income tax. The change will provide previously profitable businesses that have been forced into loss with extra flexibility to carry back up to £2 million of losses against historical profits and achieve an additional tax refund to help them to continue trading through this difficult period. I note that the measure has been welcomed by both the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Chartered Institute of Taxation.

In the 2021 Budget, the Government announced that they would increase the flexibility of the UK’s loss regime in order to provide additional cash-flow support to businesses. Currently, a business that incurs a trading loss over the course of its accounting period is able to carry that loss back to be relieved against taxable profits in the previous year. There is no limit on the value of losses that may be carried back to reduce last year’s profit. That is in addition to businesses’ ability to use losses to offset in-year profit or to carry forward against future years’ profit. We are temporarily extending that one-year loss carry-back rule to three years to support business cash flow, giving businesses greater flexibility to monetise their losses sooner, rather than carrying them forward to offset against profit in future years.

The changes made by clause 18 and schedule 2 will extend the loss carry-back facility from one year to three years. Unincorporated businesses will be able to carry back up to £2 million in trading losses incurred in each of the tax years 2020-21 and 2021-22. Incorporated businesses can carry up to the same amount of losses incurred in accounting periods ending in each of the financial years 2020 and 2021. HMRC expects around 130,000 companies to be in a position to take advantage of the policy and to receive additional relief for their trading losses. It is also expected that over 99% of claimant businesses will be unaffected by the overall cap.

The clause and the schedule also include provisions to ensure that the cap is applied proportionately across businesses and groups. Groups will need to allocate the £2 million cap across their companies, but in order to maintain the simplicity for smaller businesses, companies intending to carry back less than £200,000 of losses will not be subject to this requirement, and nor will unincorporated businesses.

Amendment 2 seeks to amend section 127(3A) of the Income Tax Act 2007 to allow for the extended carry-back rule to apply to losses incurred in UK furnished holiday letting businesses. However, the relief granted in the Bill is an extension of relief for businesses that already qualify for loss carry-back relief. There is no intention to make loss carry-back relief in its current or extended form available to other businesses.

I recognise that there is currently an incorrect reference to UK furnished holiday lettings businesses in the Bill as introduced in the House. That was included because UK furnished holiday lettings businesses are treated as trades for the purpose of part 4 of the 2007 Act, which relates to loss relief. However, as those businesses are not entitled to make the necessary claim for the existing loss carry-back relief, they cannot claim the extended relief. I have therefore tabled amendment 16 to remove that reference, and thus make the Government’s intention clear. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Glasgow Central not to put amendment 2 to a vote.

New clause 10 would require the Government to review the impact of clause 18 on levels of tax avoidance, tax evasion and tax revenues. The Government publish information every year on the tax gap, including that part of it relating to tax avoidance and evasion. That kind of information is already in the public domain. The tax information and impact note for the measure before the Committee already indicates its expected effect on tax yields. I therefore do not believe that a review is necessary, and urge Members to reject the new clause.

The policy overall will support businesses by providing accelerated relief for losses in the form of a cash refund of tax paid when times were good, to help them to continue trading through this difficult period.

[Alison Thewliss]

Amendment 2 has the opposite aim, I suppose, to Government amendment 16. We proposed to update the Income Tax Act 2007 so that the extended loss carry-back rules in the Bill, in relation to furnished holiday lettings businesses, would have effect, whereas the Government clearly intend that the measure will no longer apply to those businesses.

In tabling our amendment we assumed that the Government had drafted their measure incorrectly and had accidentally excluded the people in question, but clearly we were wrong. They have not excluded them as much as they had hoped to, and are coming back to double down on that exclusion by means of amendment 16. Our technical amendment would help the sector, and we are keen for the Government to take it on board.

The Low Incomes Tax Reform Group has also raised the wider implications of clause 18 and the potential for unintended consequences and pitfalls resulting from the interaction between any tax refund and universal credit. Has the Minister given that any consideration? The group feels that there has been a significant increase in claims for universal credit during the pandemic—it is clearly evidenced—including from self-employed individuals and limited company directors who may never have needed to claim such support before the pandemic.

Under the universal credit legislation, self-employed income for a universal credit monthly assessment period is calculated by taking actual receipts in the assessment period and deducting any amounts allowed as expenses, tax, national insurance and any relievable pension contributions in that period. The group points out that receipts specifically include any refund or repayment of income tax, VAT or national insurance contributions related to a trade, profession or vocation, so any tax refund made as a result of the provision may therefore fall to be treated as income for universal credit purposes in the assessment period in which it is received, which in most cases will lead to a reduction of universal credit of 63p for every £1 of refund. In addition, further to that, if the refund is large enough, it might trigger the surplus earnings rules, meaning that any excess income in one assessment period can be carried forward and treated as income in the next assessment period, up to a maximum of six months.

It would be helpful if the Minister said whether the Government are aware of the issue and what plans they have to raise new universal credit claimants’ awareness of it, so that they can understand that if they receive the refund while they are in receipt of universal credit, they will need to report it as income for universal credit purposes. They will have to understand the implications fully.

This is an unintended issue arising from the pandemic. People who have never claimed universal credit before, who may have recourse to the provisions that the Government are making, will not understand how the two things interact. They might not have access to appropriate financial advice, and I would not want the Treasury or HMRC to be doing something on one hand that the Department for Work and Pensions did not understand on the other. What discussions has the Minister had with DWP Ministers, and what information does he intend to give out to people? As the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group points out, there could be implications that have not been considered.

[James Murray]

We note that clause 18 and schedule 2 provide a temporary extension to the carry-back trading losses provisions from one year to three years, for losses of up to £2 million for a 12-month period, both for companies and for unincorporated businesses. Those extensions to trade loss carry-back rules for both corporation and income tax have been introduced in response to covid-19 to help businesses that have suffered economic harm as a result of the restrictions placed on them.

We understand that the intention is to provide cash-flow benefit to affected businesses by providing additional relief for trading losses. As we have heard, the Chartered Institute of Taxation has said that it welcomes this measure for giving a cash injection to businesses with a track record of making profits and paying tax, but which have suffered during the pandemic. The Chartered Institute of Taxation points out that, in many cases, this measure will represent a cash-flow, rather than an absolute, cost to Government. The cost will reverse as the business, having used up its losses by carrying them back, makes profits and pays taxes sooner in the future.

Although we recognise the broad support for the measure from the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the wider importance of helping businesses with cash flow when they have suffered as a result of covid restrictions, we have tabled new clause 10, which relates to tax avoidance and evasion. We do not doubt that most businesses benefiting from the measure will do so legitimately. Given the importance of making sure public money is spent effectively and as intended, however, we believe the Government should identify any risk and take action to mitigate those risks as necessary.

Furthermore, we would also like to raise the issue identified by the Chartered Institute of Taxation’s Low Incomes Tax Reform Group—namely, the potential interaction of any tax refund with universal credit, as set out by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central. I would therefore like to reiterate her call to the Minister to ask whether he is aware of this issue. If so, what plans do the Government have to raise awareness of this issue with universal credit claimants to make sure they understand that, if the refund is received when they are in receipt of universal credit, they will need report this income for UC purposes?

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful to the hon. Members for Glasgow Central and for Ealing North for their questions; let me speak to the points they have raised.

The hon. Member for Glasgow Central suggested—in fact, she averred—that she had tabled her amendment based on what I fear is a misunderstanding of the legislation, without her being aware that this was actually an incorrect feature of the legislation that the Government were seeking to correct. I apologise if she has been misled. It is certainly not part of any intention of the Government to change what is a long-standing arrangement for the taxation of furnished holiday lettings, and there was no intention to extend the relief to businesses that do not currently qualify for loss carry-back relief. I apologise if the legislation has inadvertently misled her, and I hope on that basis that she will not press her amendment.

On the interaction with universal credit, the key point I would make is that this is a change designed to provide businesses with flexibility. Universal credit is a cash flow-based benefit, and rightly so, because it intends to track people’s cash flow as it rises and falls in receipt of the benefit. Of course, my officials consider all these matters in the round. If there are further technical points that the hon. Members for Glasgow Central and for Ealing North would like to put forward, based on the specific feedback of the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group, we would be happy to listen to them and respond accordingly.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2

Temporary extension of periods to which trade losses may be carried back

Amendment made: 16, in schedule 2, page 101, line 34, leave out sub-paragraph (5).—(Jesse Norman.)

This amendment clarifies that relief under Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Bill is not available to a furnished holiday lettings business that is treated as a trade under section 127 of the Income Tax Act 2007.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 19

R&D tax credits for SMEs

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.

That schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.

[Jesse Norman]

Clause 19 and schedules 3 and 4 make changes to deter abuse in the payable credit element of the research and development tax relief for small or medium-sized enterprises, or SMEs. R&D tax reliefs, including the SME scheme, support businesses to invest and are a core part of the Government’s support for innovation. In 2017-18 alone, there were over 54,000 claims to the SME scheme, providing relief of £2.7 billion, which supported over £10 billion of R&D investment.

The SME scheme has two parts. First, the relief functions as a corporation tax additional deduction, reducing the profits on which a company pays corporation tax by 130% of qualifying expenditures, on top of the standard 100% deduction. Secondly, if a company is loss making, or if the deduction creates a loss, they may be entitled under the law as it stands to surrender losses in exchange for a payable credit up to 14.5% of 230% of qualifying expenditures.

However, the Government have been concerned about abuse in the payable credit element of the scheme. In particular, some loss-making companies that do little R&D themselves pay another person, such as a company based abroad, for a lot of R&D simply to have access to the payable credit element of the relief. They are thus benefiting themselves, but the benefit of the R&D is not accruing to the UK economy. To prevent abuse of the SME scheme, Budget 2018 announced a cap on the amount of payable credit that a company will be able to receive.

The change will limit the amount of payable credit available to some companies, and it will be set at £20,000 plus three times the company’s pay-as-you-earn and national insurance liability. The liability acts as a proxy for actual R&D activity happening in the UK to ensure that claimants have an actual employment footprint here in order to benefit from the payable credit.

The measure has been carefully designed to ensure that non-abusive companies are unaffected, and it achieves that through three important features. First, the threshold of £20,000 means that the smallest claims will be uncapped. Secondly, this is based on the total liability for all employees, not just the liability for employees working on R&D. Where companies subcontract R&D to connected persons, or use agency workers supplied by connected persons, they will be able to include costs attributable to that as well. Thirdly, companies that can show they are creating or preparing to create intellectual property, or are managing intellectual property that they have created, and where less than 15% of the R&D expenditure is with other connected companies, may be exempt from the cap.

Compared with the draft legislation published last year, the definition of intellectual property has been expanded, based on comments made, so that it will include both know-how and trade secrets in order to cover cases in which a company does not wish to or cannot seek a patent. We have worked closely with the industries involved on this design. The changes will take effect for accounting periods beginning on or after 1 April 2021. Up to 25,000 companies will be affected by the measure, although not all will see their payable credit reduced. The measure is expected to yield £455 million across the scorecard period.

The measure is an important step to protect the integrity of the SME scheme. The Government have extensively consulted in order to ensure that legitimate businesses are not caught, and the new rules will ensure that the reliefs remain sustainable, enabling them to continue to support innovation into the future.

[James Murray]

Clause 19 and schedules 3 and 4 introduce a new restriction, or cap, on the payable element of the R&D tax credit for SMEs. Tax reliefs that seek to incentivise firms to invest in R&D form an important part of the Government’s approach to innovation. However, as the Government admit, the SME tax credit has become a target for fraud and abuse. We welcome any Government efforts to counter fraudulent attempts to claim the SME R&D tax credit. Will the Minister set out figures explaining the extent of the fraud and abuse, including how much it has, or is estimated to have, cost the Exchequer in each of the financial years 2018-19 through 2020-21?

We note that this change has been a few years in the making. It was first announced at the 2018 Budget, the Government consulted on its detailed design in 2019, and there was a further consultation in spring and summer 2020. The opinion of the Chartered Institute of Taxation is that the outcomes of these two consultations have fed into the design of this measure in a way that it welcomes, as it considers that these changes will minimise the impact and deterrence effect on businesses undertaking genuine R&D.

The process of consultation continues, and at the March Budget, the Government announced a new review of R&D tax relief, supported by a consultation with stakeholders. Without, of course, pre-judging the outcome of that review or consultation, we would like to ask the Minister to set out any early thoughts he has about where this process may lead, both in relation to R&D tax credit and tax relief generally, and specifically as they apply to SMEs. We would welcome the Minister setting out his response to this point, as well as—as I mentioned—the figures or estimates he has on the impact on the Exchequer of fraud involving, and abuse of, the SME tax credit in each of the three past financial years.

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his questions. Of course, it is in the nature of avoidance that it is not possible to estimate: it is avoidance or potential avoidance, so it is not possible to give accurate figures as to the exact levels of avoidance that has taken place. However, it is noticeable that this measure has an estimated positive revenue effect of over £400 million, which is an interesting fact in and of itself, and quite an interesting potential indicator of the importance of the measure.

On the wider issue of progress in this area, the hon. Member will be aware that we have a review underway. It would not be appropriate for me to pre-judge the scope of this, or indeed the outcome of a review that has only relatively recently been initiated, but I assure him that it will be thorough and effective.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 3 and 4 agreed to.

Clause 20

Extension of social investment tax relief for further two years

[James Murray]

I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 20, page 13, line 20, leave out “6 April 2023” and insert “6 April 2026”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 20 stand part.

[James Murray]

Clause 20 and our amendment 23 relate to the social investment tax relief, which was introduced in 2014 to encourage investment in qualifying social enterprises and trading charities. It offers investors a range of tax reliefs, including income tax relief and CGT holdover relief, on gains reinvested in qualifying enterprises. This relief originally contained sunset provisions that would have terminated it on 26 April 2019. The sunset was extended in 2017 to 6 April 2021, and now clause 20 is extending the operation of the scheme further, to investments made in enterprises on or before 5 April 2023.

We support the decision to extend the life of this relief, which has been called for by the social investment sector, stakeholders such as the Co-operative party, and the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), during consideration of the Finance Bill 2020. However, we remain concerned that the Government need to be doing more to increase its take-up, which we note has been lower than expected. HMRC’s last statistics, released in May 2020, set out that since 2014—when the relief was launched— 110 social enterprises have raised funds of £11.2 billion through it. Indeed, the results of the Government’s 2019 call for evidence on the relief say:

“Around three-quarters of respondents reported difficulty in using SITR. Reasons given varied and included a lack of capital supply (even with the offer of tax relief) for the levels of demand; a lack of or unclear guidance; complex eligibility restrictions; and limited resources within social enterprises to manage SITR processes and investments.”

Concerns about low take-up are shared by the Chartered Institute of Taxation, which recognises that although some obstacles to using the social investment tax relief to invest in social enterprises have been removed, the effect is yet to bed in, and significant other barriers to take-up remain. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister set out what the Government are doing to improve take-up of the social investment tax relief, and whether they would consider consulting more widely on how investment in social enterprises can be facilitated. Alongside concerns that the relief is overly complex for the smaller organisations it is designed to support, analysis by the Chartered Institute of Taxation also raises concern that this relief is less well suited to investments made by way of loans, even though, anecdotally, loans to social enterprises are more common than equity investment. To understand the situation in relation to loans better, I would be grateful if the Minister informed us what proportion of the £11.2 million raised through the social investment tax relief since 2014 have been in the form of loans.

More widely, the Chartered Institute raised concerns that a two-year period to address the current barriers is unlikely to be sufficient and might put off some long-term investors. We therefore tabled amendment 23 to encourage the Government to consider and set out their view on amending the Bill to include a longer extension to the relief. I would be grateful for the Minister’s views on how long the relief should be extended.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions, to which I shall respond when I have described how the clause works.

Clause 20 extends the operation of social investment tax relief for two years, until 5 April 2023. This will continue the availability of income tax relief and capital gains tax reliefs for investors who make investments in qualifying social enterprises. This measure ensures that the Government will continue to support social enterprises in the UK that are seeking patient capital for growth. 

SITR encourages investment in social enterprises by offering income tax and capital gains tax reliefs to individual investors who subscribe for new shares, or make a new debt investment, in qualifying enterprises. Between 2014 and 2018-19, 110 social enterprises used SITR to raise £11.2 million in investment—a much lower engagement than originally anticipated. In line with commitments made when SITR was expanded in 2016, the Government conducted a review of the scheme last year, including through a call for evidence. Following the review, the Government now propose to extend SITR’s sunset clause from April 2021 to April 2023.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

Research from Social Enterprise UK indicates that about one in five social enterprises may use the tax relief to help access capital in the wake of covid-19, but that 40% are unlikely to do so in the next two years. We need to give investors time to raise and deploy capital, which could take up to two years, assuming that they started immediately once the extension had been announced. Would not a further extension show the support for entrepreneurs, social enterprises and charities that we need right now to get our communities back on their feet?

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She will be aware that this relief has been in place since 2014-15. It is unfortunate, therefore, that it has not been taken up more widely. There was a considerable period following its introduction, with the tremendous backing and support of the social enterprise sector, in which it was not taken up. It is important that those who call for its extension ask themselves why it was not taken up. The Government certainly attempted with great enthusiasm to press the case wherever possible. The truth of the matter is that many people invest in and support social enterprises by charitable giving rather than through investment, so the use of a deduction does not appear to be particularly attractive to them.

One wishes it were otherwise. I have worked in social enterprises in different ways since the 1980s and I feel very passionately about their importance, but, to take a parallel example, charities received £1.4 billion in gift aid in 2019-20. Since 2014-15, a total of £11 million has been raised through SITR—a tiny fraction. The amount of relief granted is a fraction of that. This is a relief that we are extending in order to try to support the sector to the extent that we can, but there needs to be a much more fundamental reconsideration. I have invited stakeholders in the sector, at length, to step forward and help us to think about whether a new approach may be valuable and interesting. I thank the hon. Lady for her comments.

Given the balance between SITR’s performance and the desire to continue support for social enterprises, a two-year extension seems to provide an appropriate timeframe for the scheme to continue to support the social enterprise sector while also providing a reasonable period over which to monitor its effectiveness. The changes made by clause 20 would extend the operation of SITR by two years at, I am afraid, negligible cost to the Exchequer. I wish that the cost were higher, because it would show that the relief was being more widely used.

12:26

Amendment 23 seeks to extend SITR’s sunset clause to April 2026. Between 2014 and 2018-19 about 110 social enterprises raised £11.2 million in investment. I fully appreciate that SITR has supported these enterprises in accessing finance, but as all would concur, this has been a very modest rate of progress compared with what was originally expected when the relief was introduced in 2014. We committed to review SITR and published a call for evidence. Following a careful assessment of that evidence, we decided to extend as set out in the clause. The Treasury believes that all taxes and reliefs must meet their policy objectives in a way that is fair and objective, and that is what this extension is designed to do.

The hon. Member for Ealing North asked what the Government are doing to improve take-up. The answer is that we are closely engaging with stakeholders on this issue. We have supported awareness campaigns in the past and we continue to work with Big Society Capital, but the plain fact is that this relief is not especially attractive. I have told stakeholders that I would welcome a more fundamental reconsideration.

Finally, on the question about the split between loan and equity, I am not sure that those numbers exist, but I will ask officials to check and will send the hon. Gentleman the details if we have them.

Social enterprises play a vital social and economic role across the United Kingdom. That is something that you, Sir Gary, and I know from personal experience. They have been a deeply important factor in this country’s development history. Many have brilliantly supported communities through the covid-19 pandemic. The Government want to continue support for the sector, but they need to ensure that these reliefs are appropriately managed. That is what this clause does.

[James Murray]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

Workers’ services provided through intermediaries

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Jesse Norman]

The clause relates to workers’ services provided through intermediaries and makes technical changes to the off-payroll working legislation. The off-payroll working rules exist to ensure that a contractor who works like an employee, but through a personal service company, pays broadly the same amount of tax as those who are directly employed. The rules ensure fairness between individuals who work in similar ways but through different structures.

This is not a new tax. The changes legislated for last year improve compliance with existing rules by transferring the responsibility for determining whether the rules apply from the contractor’s personal service company to their client and have taken effect from April 2021 in the private and voluntary sectors. The changes were implemented in the public sector in 2017. Reform was legislated for in the Finance Act 2020 and came into effect on 6 April this year, as planned.

The main change we are making in this clause is to address an issue raised late last year by stakeholders. A small section of the legislation introduced in the Finance Act 2020 and intended to prevent people from avoiding the rules through the use of artificial structures applied more broadly than was intended. This had the effect that some workers who were not intended to be within the scope of the rules would be caught. This would have placed obligations under the off-payroll working rules on a wider range of clients and engagements than was intended from 6 April 2021. The Government announced on 12 November 2020 that they would make a technical change in this Finance Bill to ensure that the legislation reflected the policy intent.

HMRC has worked closely with stakeholders to find a solution that both prevents avoidance and ensures that the legislation does not apply beyond the scope of the policy intent. The main technical change that we are making in this clause will ensure that the rules do not apply when the worker has no interest in the intermediary company or, when they have a less than material interest in the intermediary, their fee is already taxed wholly as employment income.

The clause also proactively introduces a targeted anti-avoidance rule, or TAAR, to future-proof the rules and further minimise any risk of contractors being drawn into avoidance arrangements. This will ensure that unscrupulous parties cannot exploit these conditions in order to avoid the rules.

The Government are also making two minor related technical changes, which were requested by stakeholders, to make it easier for businesses to operate the rules and to ensure that parties who provide fraudulent information are held responsible. Currently, workers are asked to inform their client whether their intermediary meets the conditions that mean the rules need to be considered. If the worker does not provide this information, clients must assume that the intermediary is in scope. This change will make it easier for parties to share information by allowing the intermediary, as well as the worker, to confirm to the client whether the off-payroll working rules need to be considered.

The second change amends the provisions related to fraudulent information. This will allow HMRC to take action against any UK-based party in the labour supply chain that provides fraudulent information, for example by claiming that an intermediary is out of the scope of the rules when they are not. Currently, the liability would rest with the worker if they, or someone connected to them, provided fraudulent information. This change ensures that the liability rests with any UK-based party in the labour supply chain that provided the fraudulent information. This protects others in the supply chain from being liable for underpaid tax and national insurance contributions when they have acted on this fraudulent information in good faith.

The clause ensures that the off-payroll working reform works as intended from 6 April, and it introduces minor, but helpful, technical changes that were recommended by stakeholders. These changes had effect from 6 April, when the off-payroll working reform took effect.

[James Murray]

As we have heard, clause 21 introduces a series of changes that relate to workers’ services provided through intermediaries, the provisions of which we support.

First, the clause makes amendments to the off-payroll working legislation in chapter 10 part 2 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, to address the unintended widening of the conditions that determine when a company is an intermediary and is subject to chapter 10. The off-payroll working rules were amended by the Finance Act 2020, including an amendment that sought to prevent potential avoidance of the rules by workers diluting their shares in these intermediaries, so they did not have a material interest. However, this amendment widened the determining conditions applicable to companies beyond policy intent. The clause limits the scope of these conditions by removing those engagements that would be unintentionally caused by the rules, restoring the original policy intent.

The clause further introduces a targeted anti-avoidance rule that seeks to prevent avoidance arrangements trying to circumvent the conditions for a company or partnership to use intermediaries for the purposes of chapter 10. As the Minister will know, we support measures that seek to address avoidance.

The clause introduces two further technical amendments. The first makes it easier for parties in a contractual chain to share information relating to the off-payroll working rules. The second places the loss liability for the tax on the party in the labour supply chain that provided the fraudulent information. It is right that those in a supply chain should be held responsible for providing fraudulent information.

As the Minister will know, other hon. Members raised concerns relating to clause 21 in Committee of the whole House earlier this week. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), who is co-chair of the all-party parliamentary loan charge group, asked whether the Government would consider amending the clause

“to allow only compliant umbrella companies to exist.”—[Official Report, 20 April 2021; Vol. 692, c. 912.]

In the interest of all views on this debate being fully considered, will the Minister set out his assessment of the impact that change would have?

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his support for this important legislation. Although not related to this clause, I thank him for the support the Labour party has given on the issue of the loan charge. These are important ways to curb forms of abuse of the rules that may mean people do not pay appropriate levels of tax, so I am grateful for that support.

On the last point that the hon. Gentleman raised, I am afraid that it was an unfortunate and slightly misinformed debate in Committee of the whole House, in part because there was a suggestion that somehow clause 21 benefited only umbrella companies and should be struck out, and that the effect of striking it out would somehow mean that workers would receive agency rights by working through agencies’ payrolls. In fact, that is not correct. Clause 21 has no bearing on workers receiving rights, and it also ensures that the rules apply correctly to agencies, and indeed to a wider group, such as employees on secondment. The effect of the amendment proposed in Committee of the whole House would have been to gut the legislation, which is why the Government opposed it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22

Payments on termination of employment

[Alison Thewliss]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 22, page 17, line 17, after “then” and before “ – ” insert

“where it is to the benefit of the employee the following calculation may be used”.

This amendment would ensure that, in new subsection 402D(6A) ITEPA03 to be inserted by FB clause 22(7), the method of calculating post-employment notice pay (PENP) for certain employees paid by equal monthly instalments whose post-employment notice period is not a whole number of months continues to be an alternative method that can be used if it benefits the employee, rather than being compulsory.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Alison Thewliss]

This technical amendment would ensure that, in new subsection 402D(6A) of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, which is to be inserted by clause 22(7), the method of calculating post-employment notice pay for certain employees paid by equal monthly instalments whose post-employment notice period is not a whole number of months continues to be an alternative method that can be used if it benefits the employee, rather than being compulsory.

In common with the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, we feel that the provisions do not match the intended policy. The institute has recommended that clause 22(7)(c), which inserts new subsection 402D(6A) into the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003—I will be sending my notes to the Hansard people, given all the figures and facts—needs to make it clear that the method set out for calculating post-employment notice pay is an alternative that can be used, rather than something that must be used. That would make the legislation on termination payments align with the policy intent stated in the Bill’s explanatory notes, the “Notes on the Finance Bill resolutions 2021”, and HMRC’s existing guidance.

Clause 22 amends the income treatment of termination payments. As explained in paragraph 11 of the explanatory notes, clause 22(7)(c) provides for the new subsection to be inserted into the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003. The clause will apply to individuals who have their employment terminated and receive a termination payment on or after 6 April 2021. We understand that the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has identified some technical difficulties with the proposals. It believes that the intention of legislating this point is to put into law the ability to choose to adopt the alternative method, which is in line with HMRC’s policy of enacting extra statutory concessions and other easements following the Wilkinson case. If enacted, however, the Finance Bill will make it compulsory, so we recommend our amendment, and we ask the Government to give greater consideration to it. It is a very technical and detailed amendment, as I have said already, but I urge the Minister, if he cannot accept it today, to bring it back at a later stage.

[James Murray]

As we know, clause 22 focuses on post-employment notice pay, which is the part of a termination payment that is treated as being a payment in respect of the employee’s notice period, and that is subject to income tax and to employees’ and employers’ national insurance contributions. The clause amends the income tax treatment of termination payments in two ways. First, it provides a new calculation for the post-employment notice pay for employees who are paid by equal monthly instalments and whose post-employment notice period is not a whole number of months. That will help avoid excessive tax charges, and we support it.

Secondly, the clause aligns the tax treatment of post-employment notice pay for individuals who are non-resident in the year of termination of their UK employment with the treatment for all UK residents. Currently, post-employment notice pay is not chargeable to UK tax if an employee is non-resident for the tax year in which their employment terminates. This measure will ensure that non-residents are charged tax and national insurance contributions on post-employment notice pay to the extent that they have worked in the UK during their notice period. The change affects only individuals who physically performed the duties of their employment in the UK. That non-residents should make tax contributions on post-employment notice pay for the time that they worked in the UK during their notice period is a fair change, so we support the measure.

12:30

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the hon. Members for Glasgow Central and for Ealing North. I do not think that we need to spend too long on this. Clause 22 makes changes to the taxation of termination payments. It was published in draft and announced in a ministerial statement in July 2020. The measure has been set out in the explanatory notes and in Opposition speeches, and I will not spend too much time on them now.

The clause alters the calculation used to define the amount of a termination payment that should be taxed as post-employment notice pay. This is when an unworked notice period is not in whole months but an individual is paid monthly. Secondly, as hon. Members mentioned, the clause brings post-employment notice pay paid to non-UK residents within the charge to UK tax. I am grateful for the support of the Labour Opposition on that.

In terms of the amendment, I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Glasgow Central slightly stuttered over what is a formidably technical matter, but I think we can digest the point very simply. There is currently no single way of calculating the payments. Amendment 1 seeks to make the calculation alternative rather than mandatory for the purposes of post-employment notice pay. I remind her and the Committee that the new calculation is more accurate for employees paid by equal monthly instalments, and that it is more straightforward for employers to administer a single mandatory calculation rather than having to choose between two alternative calculations. It is therefore just a better and more effective way of discharging the policy intent, and I urge her not to put the amendment to a vote.

[Alison Thewliss]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23

Cash equivalent benefit of a zero-emissions van

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Clause 23 makes changes to reduce the van benefit charge—the VBC—to zero for employees who are provided with a company van that produces zero carbon emissions. The van benefit charge applies where an employee is provided with a company van by their employer that they use privately, other than for ordinary home-to-work commuting.

At Budget 2014, the Government announced that the van benefit charge for zero-emission vans would be a percentage of the flat-rate van benefit charge for conventionally fuelled vehicles until April 2020. Those changes were legislated for in the Finance Act 2015. At Budget 2015, the Government announced that the planned increases to the percentages for 2016-17 and 2017-18 would be deferred to 2018-19, and the percentages would increase by 20% for each subsequent tax year, rising to 100% in 2021-22. Those changes were legislated for in the Finance Act 2016.

The changes made by clause 23 will reduce the van benefit charge to zero from 6 April 2021 for all company vans that emit zero carbon emissions, giving those vehicles preferential tax treatment over conventionally fuelled vehicles. The Government announced the measure at Budget 2020 to incentivise the uptake of zero-emission vans and to help the UK to meet its legally binding climate change targets.

Transport is now the largest sector for domestic UK greenhouse gas emissions, and a significant proportion of that is accounted for by road transport. Moreover, vans tend to do more mileage and are more polluting than cars. By reducing the level of the tax charge that would otherwise be applicable, the change outlined in the clause will incentivise the uptake of zero-emission vans and support the Government’s environmental commitments.

[James Murray]

As we have heard, clause 23 seeks to amend the law in relation to the van benefit charge, a taxable benefit that arises when an employee is provided with a company van that is also used at times for personal journeys. We know that from 2021-22 the cash equivalent of the van benefit charge for zero-emission vans is nil. This applies only to those vans that cannot emit carbon dioxide under any circumstances when being driven.

The Government announced their intention to introduce the policy change in the 2020 spring Budget. As the measure seeks to incentivise the uptake of zero-emission vans, we support it standing part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

Optional remuneration arrangements: statutory parental bereavement pay

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Optional remuneration arrangements: statutory parental bereavement pay (review)—

“(1) The Secretary of State shall, before 1 April 2022, publish a report on the impact of section 27.

(2) The report in subsection (1) shall include consideration of the impact on—

(a) the take-up of statutory parental bereavement pay,

(b) revenues lost or gained due to tax avoidance, and

(c) productivity levels within the UK economy.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report about the impact of the measures in section 27, including take-up of statutory parental bereavement pay.

[Jesse Norman]

The clause makes changes to ensure that employees who receive certain long-term salary sacrifice benefits do not lose entitlement to a tax advantage if they begin to receive statutory parental bereavement pay.

The optional remuneration arrangement legislation introduced on 6 April 2017 largely removed the income tax and national insurance contributions advantages for most employment-related benefits provided through salary sacrifice schemes. Transitional rules for relevant long-term benefits allow the benefit valuation rules prior to the optional remuneration arrangement legislation to apply until 5 April 2021, provided that there is no variation in an employee’s employment contract. The relevant long-term benefits are employer-provided living accommodation, relevant school fees arrangements and certain employer-provided vehicles. Statutory payments are normally treated as a variation in contract, but those were specifically listed and disregarded in the 2017 optional remuneration arrangement legislation.

On 6 April 2020, a new statutory payment, statutory parental bereavement pay, was introduced under the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2018. The payment is payable to employed parents or partners of a parent who loses a child, whether biological, adoptive or born to a surrogate, under the age of 18, or who suffers a stillbirth from 24 weeks. This statutory payment is not listed in the 2017 optional remuneration arrangement legislation as one that may be disregarded as a variation in contract, as it did not exist at the time.

Where an employee is in receipt of statutory parental bereavement pay, therefore, and one or more of the relevant long-term benefits through a salary sacrifice arrangement, the variation to employment conditions under the optional remuneration arrangement legislation meant that they would lose entitlement to the income tax and national insurance contribution advantages of receiving the benefit in that manner.

The clause therefore includes statutory parental bereavement pay as a statutory payment that will be disregarded under the 2017 optional remuneration arrangement legislation. The clause will disregard statutory parental bereavement pay as a variation in contract under the optional remuneration arrangement legislation, ensuring that employees in receipt of one of the long-term benefits and statutory parental bereavement pay will be subject to the original remuneration arrangement rules, which continue to provide a tax advantage until 5 April 2021.

New clause 2 would require the Government to publish a report on the impact of clause 27. The Treasury carefully considers the impact of individual measures announced at fiscal events. This clause legislates for a temporary retrospective measure to protect a small number of individuals who receive a transitional benefit under the optional remuneration arrangements and statutory parental bereavement pay from losing their tax advantage in 2020-21. The legislation ceased to apply from 6 April 2021, so the clause will have no further impact. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Glasgow Central not to press the new clause to a vote.

[Alison Thewliss]

We of course welcome all moves to support parents through the difficult time of bereavement. Our new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish reports on the uptake of statutory bereavement pay. It is important that we encourage people to take it up and that we let people know it is available to them. If the Government are not monitoring that, it is difficult to tell how effective the policy is.

Bereaved parents must be given the space and the time to grieve at a time of unimaginable tragedy. A lot will not know that they are entitled to this provision should the worst happen. We welcome the Government’s move to introduce a statutory requirement for people in the event of the death of a child, and we welcome the provisions more generally. Our aim is to increase the uptake of the payment and public knowledge of it.

In Scotland, we are certainly doing everything we can, within the constitutional and financial constraints placed on us, to support parents. We are increasing funeral support payments to reflect the cost of living. The 2020-21 Budget includes £1.3 million for funeral support payments in Scotland, increasing the standard rate from £700 to £1,000. The UK Government have not built the cost of inflation into their awards, but we will certainly be doing that for ours. It is important to take that cost into account when considering the whole package of support that can be delivered for bereaved parents.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) has been pushing for an increase in bereavement leave for everybody in all circumstances, particularly given this last year, during which things have been so difficult for so many people across the country. Many employers still do not give the bereavement leave that they should when people are in such circumstances. I urge the Government to consider expanding bereavement leave to everybody in all circumstances. While it is incredibly important for parents, it is important that everybody has the time, space and financial backing to grieve. Sadly, many people do not have that vital support.

[James Murray]

As we have heard, statutory parental bereavement pay was introduced in April 2020. The measure in clause 27 has been proposed to ensure that a payment will not be treated as a variation in contract for certain long-term salary sacrifice arrangements, so that recipients of such payments are not disadvantaged. The clause will bring statutory parental bereavement pay into line with other benefits.

Without the change, if a parent takes such leave, the time they have taken off will factor into the calculation of a salary sacrifice arrangement. In effect, taking statutory parental bereavement pay would lessen their entitlement to salary sacrifice arrangements.

Exemptions for other benefits exist, but they were made before the introduction of statutory parental bereavement pay, so the latter is not included. Clause 27 will include it, bringing it into line with other benefits. That is sensible, and Labour supports the clause.

[Jesse Norman]

I am not sure there is a need to respond. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow Central for her comments and the shadow Minister for the Opposition’s support.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29

Collective money purchase benefits

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 17 and 18.

That schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill

New clause 9—Collective money purchase benefits (review)—

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons within 24 months of the commencement of the first collective money purchase pension scheme a review of the impact of section 29 and schedule 5 of this Act, including its impact on the distribution of benefits within collective money purchase schemes according to the age of the members of the scheme.”

[Jesse Norman]

Clause 29 and schedule 5 make changes to ensure that pension schemes providing collective money purchase benefits can operate as UK registered pension schemes, without giving rise to unintended tax consequences.

The Government have successfully enabled collective money purchase pension schemes, which are also known as collective defined contribution pension schemes. They are a new style of pension scheme, enabling employers and employees to work together to deliver mutually beneficial outcomes. The clause makes corresponding changes to accommodate collective money purchase schemes in the pensions tax legislation.

The framework for such schemes is set out in the Pension Schemes Act 2021, which had cross-party support and received Royal Assent earlier this year. It was widely welcomed both inside and outside Parliament. The Government are proposing a number of technical changes to pensions tax legislation, so that collective money purchase pension schemes can operate on the same basis as other registered pension schemes.

There is a special provision in the 2021 Act so that, in the unlikely event of a pension scheme that provides collective money purchase benefits being wound up, it can still make payments to its pensioners. Amendments 17 and 18 make minor changes so that there are no adverse tax consequences if in the future those payments are made by pension schemes in Northern Ireland in the process of being wound up.

New clause 9 would require the Government to provide a review of the impact of the pensions tax legislation applicable to collective money purchase schemes and, in particular, of the distribution of benefits within those schemes according to the age of the members of the scheme. The purpose of clause 29 and schedule 5 is to enable pension schemes that provide collective money purchase benefits to operate in the same way as other registered pension schemes. As with all these schemes, tax law applies to all members on the same basis regardless of age. Tax law determines how much tax relief on contributions is given by the Government and the tax regime for benefits paid by registered pension schemes. Tax law does not affect how the pension scheme distributes the benefits it pays. Therefore, the new clause is outside the scope of what tax law can achieve.

There is a sentiment in the new clause about the distribution of benefits for members of different ages more generally. Fairness of outcome for all members is important, and it is a key principle of the Government’s work on collective money purchase schemes. My hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions was clear when the 2021 Act was being considered by this House: regulations under that Act will require collective money purchase scheme rules to contain provisions so that there is no difference in treatment between different cohorts or age groups of scheme members when calculating and adjusting benefits. If the scheme design does not do that, it will not be authorised by the Pensions Regulator. For those reasons, I ask the Opposition to withdraw their amendment.

12:45

[James Murray]

Clause 29 relates to the tax treatment of collective defined contribution schemes as introduced by the Pension Schemes Act 2021. We support the introduction of CDC schemes, and schedule 5 sets out in detail how they will be treated for tax purposes.

As the House of Commons Library explains, in CDC schemes both the employer and the employee contribute to a collective fund from which retirement incomes are drawn. The funding risk is borne collectively by the individuals whose investments make up the fund. In a similar way to a defined contribution scheme, the employer carries no ongoing risk.

The Opposition played a crucial role alongside trade unions to allow the Royal Mail to set up a CDC pension agreement with the Communication Workers Union in November 2018. We also warned, during the passage of the Pension Schemes Act, that we need CDC schemes to avoid the same pitfalls as defined benefit schemes as they relate to intergenerational fairness. CDC was first identified as a possible solution for Royal Mail workers being transferred to a less generous defined contribution scheme in 2017, which might not have provided sufficient income in retirement. The principle of a CDC scheme was agreed, and a specific Royal Mail CDC scheme was designed and modelled.

Work by Willis Towers Watson actuaries suggests that the CDC scheme will on average produce 70% more for an individual than a defined contribution scheme, and 40% more, currently, than a defined benefit scheme, according to the CWU. The scheme would replicate the old defined benefit scheme in design, producing a wage for retirement generated by a CDC and a guaranteed lump sum.

Although the CDC in different forms is used in other countries, such as Canada, Denmark and the Netherlands, no scheme of its type has previously existed in the UK. Legislation was therefore required. The first CDC scheme, in Royal Mail, is expected to be launched later this year, now that the Pension Schemes Act has been passed. Employers in the UK will now have an option to offer three, rather than two, types of scheme: defined contribution, defined benefit and collective defined contribution.

Given that the design of the CDC scheme is entirely new, we recognise that the clause will ensure that they may function in the same way as other schemes in relation to existing pensions tax treatment such as the annual allowance. Our new clause 9 simply asks that the Treasury lays before the House within 24 months of the commencement of the first collective money purchase pension scheme a review of the impact of clause 29 and schedule of 5, including on the distribution of benefits within collective money purchase schemes according to the age of members of the scheme.

CDC schemes are new. As the Minister has agreed, it is important that we ensure intergenerational fairness. I would therefore welcome his ongoing consideration as regards carrying out such a review.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I anticipated them in my remarks. I would say that, as he has indicated, the issue was carefully discussed and reviewed—rightly so—in the passage of the Pension Schemes Act 2021. The importance of there being no difference in treatment between different cohorts and age groups of scheme lenders was made clear, and it was made clear that the regulations would cover that. That will be required by law, and it will fall not to HMRC or the Government, but to the independent Pensions Regulator to adjudicate on the effectiveness of the scheme.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5

Pension schemes: collective money purchase benefits

Amendments made: 17, to schedule 5, page 116, line 25, after “36(7)(b)” insert “or 87(7)(b)”.

This amendment ensures that the new paragraph 2(9) of Schedule 28 to the Finance Act 2004 (inserted by paragraph 20 of Schedule 5 to the Bill), which deals with benefits payable by a collective money purchase scheme in the event of its being wound up, operates correctly in relation to a scheme governed by the law of Northern Ireland.

Amendment 18, to schedule 5, page 116, line 32, after “36(7)(b)” insert “or 87(7)(b)”.—(Jesse Norman.)

This amendment ensures that the new paragraph 2(10) of Schedule 28 to the Finance Act 2004 (inserted by paragraph 20 of Schedule 5 to the Bill), which deals with benefits payable by a collective money purchase scheme in the event of its being wound up, operates correctly in relation to a scheme governed by the law of Northern Ireland.

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 34

Repeal of provisions relating to the Interest and Royalties Directive

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Jesse Norman]

This is a small technical clause and I will not spend long on it. The clause repeals legislation that gave effect to the EU interest and royalties directive in UK law. The change will mean that the taxation of EU companies will be aligned with the way in which the UK taxes companies in the rest of the world, meaning that the taxation of intra-group payments of interest and royalties will be governed solely by the reciprocal obligations in our double taxation agreements. The clause removes from our law an obligation that we are no longer bound to apply and ensures that all foreign companies are subject to the same rules regardless of where they are resident.

[James Murray]

We do not oppose the clause, which repeals legislation that gave effect to the EU interest and royalties directive in UK law, and which will ensure that companies resident in EU member states will cease to benefit from UK withholding tax exemption now that the UK no longer has an obligation to provide relief. As a result, EU companies will no longer receive more favourable treatment than companies based elsewhere in the world and the UK’s ability to withhold tax and cross-border payments of annual interest and royalties will be governed solely by the reciprocal obligations in double taxation arrangements. We understand what the clause sets out to do and do not oppose its standing part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35

Payments made to victims of modern slavery etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Jesse Norman]

This is an important clause. It exempts financial support payments made to potential victims of modern slavery and human trafficking from income tax. The UK has a legal obligation, under the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, to assist victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. Financial support payments have been made to victims of modern slavery and human trafficking since 1 April 2009, when the trafficking convention came into force in the UK.

When a potential victim of modern slavery and human trafficking is identified, they are considered under the national referral mechanism. This is a framework for identifying victims of modern slavery and human trafficking and it ensures that they receive appropriate financial support. In the absence of a specific exemption, the payments made by the UK Government and the devolved Administrations to potential victims while they are assessed under the national referral mechanism are charge- able to income tax. The changes made by clause 35 mean that payments made from 1 April 2009 to potential victims of modern slavery and human trafficking are exempt from income tax. It is important to note that HMRC has not made any income tax deductions from payments already made to potential victims.

These changes confirm the Government’s commitment to assist potential victims of modern slavery and human trafficking under the trafficking convention. The clause provides clarity that financial support payments made to potential victims are exempt from income tax. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[James Murray]

We are pleased to support this important clause, which, as we have heard, introduces an income tax exemption for payments made to victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. As we also heard, the UK has an obligation under the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings to assist victims of modern slavery and human trafficking in their physical, psychological and social recovery, including material assistance. The exemption from income tax will have effect from 1 April 2009, when financial support payments started. We welcome this measure, being wholly relieving and with retrospective effect, and are pleased to support its standing part of the Bill.

[Alison Thewliss]

I rise to support the clause; I think it is absolutely the right thing to do. May we have more information on how many people have received such payments since 2009? It would be useful to have a picture of how many people have benefited from this.

[Jesse Norman]

Of course, HMRC does not disclose information about individual taxpayers. It has not made any income tax deductions on payments already made to potential victims. I am not aware of whether it has the data, but I am happy to check and, if it does, I will respond to the hon. Lady.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37

Relief for losses etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 8 be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.

[Jesse Norman]

Clause 37 makes technical amendments to the corporate loss relief rules introduced in 2017. These ensure that the rules function as originally intended. They protect revenue by preventing companies from claiming excessive loss relief.

When a company makes a loss, it can carry forward that loss and use it to offset its taxable profits in future years. The Finance (No. 2) Act 2017 reformed the UK’s loss relief regime. There were two main effects of that reform. First, the amount of profit that can be relieved by carried-forward losses is restricted to 50%, subject to a £5 million deductions allowance. Secondly, losses arising after 1 April 2017 can be carried forward and relieved more flexibly as they can be set against different types of income and against profits of other members of the same group. The loss restriction ensures that companies cannot use carried-forward losses to reduce their tax bill to nothing when they are making substantial profits.

Legislation for the new loss relief rules needed to be sufficiently detailed to ensure that they were robust in relation to the complex arrangements of large companies operating across a diverse set of activities. The Government have since identified limited circumstances where the rules are not functioning as intended.

The clause ensures that groups can still have access to the £5 million allowance following a corporate acquisition or demerger. This will allow those groups access to the correct amount of loss relief to which they are entitled and as was originally intended. The clause also makes several minor technical amendments to the loss reform rules. It ensures: first, that anti-avoidance rules that apply following a “change of ownership” operate correctly; secondly, that the technical calculations that determine the amount of losses that can be set against profits apply as intended; and thirdly, that the rules governing how the £5 million allowance is allocated across corporate groups applies as originally intended and in a way that will reduce the administrative burdens on groups.

Due to the £5 million allowance, some 99% of companies are not financially affected by the carried-forward loss restriction. That will not change as a result of these amendments. Some companies will also benefit from the simpler rules for calculating their loss relief restriction and, in some cases, companies will benefit from a reduced administrative burden.

[James Murray]

We do not oppose clause 37, which amends the loss relief legislation and ensures that the relevant part of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 meets the policy objective of restricting relief for certain carried-forward losses. Schedule 8 allows certain groups to access an allowance to which they are entitled following acquisition or demerger. The schedule also makes further amendments to the transfer of trade provisions where there has been a change of ownership, group relief for calculation of loss restriction and allocation of the deductions allowance and group allocation statement submission requirements. As these amendments have been made to ensure that the legislation works as intended and to reduce administrative burdens, we do not oppose them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 8 agreed to.

Clause 38

Corporate interest restriction: minor amendments

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Jesse Norman]

Clause 38 makes two changes to ensure that the corporate interest restriction rules work as intended. The Government introduced these rules in 2017 to counter base erosion and profit shifting by multinational groups. The rules restrict the ability of large businesses to reduce their UK taxable profits through excessive interest and other financing costs.

The first change applies from 1 July 2020 and clarifies the interaction between the rules governing the interest restriction, real estate investment trusts and the territorial scope of corporation tax. From 6 April 2020, the UK property rental business of non-resident companies within a UK real estate investment trust group comes within the charge to corporation tax rather than income tax. The proposed change ensures that such a non-resident company will still face the consequences of any interest disallowance, even if it decides to allocate its interest disallowance to a residual business rather than to its UK property rental business.

The second change applies from 1 April 2017 and deals with an administrative matter. As part of the application of the interest restriction rules, a group reporting company is required to file an interest restriction return. The proposed change ensures that no penalties will arise for the late filing of a return where there is a “reasonable excuse” for the failure. This exclusion is included within the corporation tax self-assessment regime and should apply in the same way to the interest restriction regime.

[James Murray]

We do not oppose clause 38, which makes technical amendments to the corporate interest restriction rules in part 10 of schedule 7A to the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 to ensure that the regime works as intended. We recognise that the amendments are minor, have come about as a result of engagement with the affected businesses and are necessary for the regime to work as intended.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 38 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39

Northern Ireland Housing Executive

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Jesse Norman]

This is a small but important measure. Clause 39 exempts the Northern Ireland Housing Executive from corporation tax, bringing it into line with state-funded housing providers and local authorities elsewhere in the UK. It will save the Northern Ireland Housing Executive millions of pounds in corporation tax payments. It is necessary to ensure that it is subject to the same tax treatment as other housing authorities elsewhere in the UK.

[James Murray]

The Whips will be relieved to hear that I have a very short contribution to make on this clause. The providers of state-funded housing in England, Wales and Scotland are exempt from corporation tax as they are considered to be local authorities for corporation tax purposes. However, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive was established in such a way that it did not meet the definition of local authority for corporation tax purposes. The clause introduces a new corporation tax exemption for the Executive and it brings the situation in Northern Ireland into line with the other nations of the UK. We support the clause standing part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(David Rutley.)

13:02

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

Westminster Hall

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Westminster Hall

Thursday 22 April 2021

[Dr Rupa Huq in the Chair]

BACKBENCH BUSINESS

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Westminster Hall

Religious Minorities: Land Rights

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Westminster Hall

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Order, 25 February).  

[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.] 

13:34

[Dr Rupa Huq (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 short suspension between this debate and the next one that starts at 3.15 pm. I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of debates in Westminster Hall and are expected to stay for the entire duration of the debate. I must also remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times to each other and to us here in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address—they will have had an email this morning with the address. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they leave the room after using them. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.

13:35

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered land rights for religious minorities including Baha’is in Iran.

First, I place on the record my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this debate. I also thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for co-sponsoring this debate in his capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the Baha’i faith. He had hoped to be here, but unfortunately he has other things to do, so he is unable to be here. Others who wanted to participate have not been able to attend, either. None the less, the issue is of great importance. When I and others have made our contributions, hon. Members and the Minister in particular will understand how important it is.

I am pleased to see my good friend, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara), in his place. He is always very faithful and attends not only in his role as a spokesperson for the Scottish National party, but because he has a deep interest in these issues, as has the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David). I very much look forward to the Minister’s response. It is good to see him in his place as well.

I am also a member of the all-party group on the Baha’i faith, but I speak today primarily in my role as chairperson of the all-party group for international freedom of religion or belief, a group that we have had in Parliament for some time. My interest in that particular APPG is significant. We have more than 130 members and peers from the House of Commons and House of Lords, so it is a deep interest for many people. The issue of the Baha’is has come to our attention for some time and we very much want to put the issue on the record. As I and others will explain, there is gross persecution of the Baha’is in Iran.

In March this year, the all-party group for international freedom of religion or belief published its third annual “Commentary on the Current State of International Freedom of Religion or Belief”. It includes reports on the state of freedom of religion or belief in 25 countries and territories, including Iran, and offers recommendations for UK foreign policy, which is why it is so important to have the Minister here to see what the Government can do to respond in a positive and helpful way.

In the foreword to the report, three leading experts in the field, Professor Sir Malcolm Evans, Dr Nazila Ghanea and Dr Ahmed Shaheed observed the following trend—this is their opinion in relation to Iran and the Baha’is in particular:

“It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that for many, the pandemic has provided a backdrop to a further deepening of the repression and suppression which they have been facing – as some states have taken the opportunities presented by the ‘eyes of the international community being elsewhere’”—

as they obviously were during the covid-19 lockdown—

“to return to their oppressive practices.”

Today, I will illustrate clearly that those oppressive practices are alive and, unfortunately, exceeding the boundaries of what is legally and morally acceptable in Iran.

I have met the Baha’is on many occasions. I can honestly say that they are some of the nicest, most generous and genuine people anyone could ever meet. They have a pleasant way with them, as well as a smile and a handshake that matches that pleasantness. Today, I wish to highlight one facet of why the Baha’i community in Iran are facing increasingly oppressive practices, and the particular injustice of the denial of land rights to the rural community of farmers in the small village of Ivel in Mazandaran province.

We all know the problems in Iran, its position in the world and how the world looks on it, but there is specific, physical targeting of ethnic and religious minorities, particularly the Baha’is. From the information available to the APPG and to my office, it is clear that the expropriation of land in the village of Ivel was the first indicator of a deepening pattern of escalating repression of the Baha’is in the province of Mazandaran at the hands of Iranian authorities. When we hear what has happened, we will know clearly where we are in relation to this.

Beyond Iran, the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief has, in recent weeks, heard evidence and testimony, which I will touch on, about how religious minority communities face denial of land rights in other states, ranging from the restriction of public goods necessary for agriculture to attacks on cultural heritage, even burial sites. Baha’i graves have been desecrated, which I will explain properly later on. I bring these issues to the attention of the Minister—my Minister—and to the Government—my Government.

There has been a Baha’i community in the village of Ivel in northern Iran for around 160 years. Many generations ago, shortly after the foundation of the Baha’i faith in 1844, the majority of the community were farmers, working for their subsistence through the hard discipline of an agricultural life, a way of life recognised by rural people in every culture and land across the world. The same families have tended the land for generations.

Some members of the Baha’i faith live in my constituency and a neighbouring constituency, and I have had the opportunity to meet them at home. They are so proud of their heritage, culture and where they are, and I know they wish me to speak on their behalf. The Baha’i community was committed to their farms, to their families and, very much, to their faith. They were also committed to service to their neighbours and to their nation. Anyone who meets the Baha’is will see that they are not just about themselves, but about others. I have been impressed by that.

From the earliest stages of the Baha’i presence in Ivel, they contributed resources and time to the social, economic and cultural development of their community, a commitment that is shared by so many people of all faiths and none. At the very beginning, the Baha’is reached out to those of other religious faiths and groups to ensure they created relationships that benefited from the pluralistic society, which unfortunately no longer exists.

They built schools and bathhouses that were open to all the people of the village—the Baha’is, the Muslims and those of other faiths. They contributed towards the care of victims of conflict and earthquakes. Despite their industry and service to others, these Baha’i farmers have been singled out for unusually persistent levels of persecution. From 1983 onwards, the post-revolutionary Government made repeated efforts to expel them from the village and displace them from their lands. What has been happening has been specific and it becomes much more worrying, as you will hear from my comments as we go on.

In June 2010, those efforts extended to the authorities sending bulldozers to demolish some 50 Baha’i homes in the village. Since 1983, the Baha’is have used, and exhausted, every possible legal channel to defend their legal rights to their properties and lands. Their frustration is that something is happening that is truly wrong, evil and vindictive, and which specifically targets them, and they do not have the protection that they should have from the legal system in Iran.

Reports from the Baha’i international community reveal that on 1 August 2020 branch 54 of the special court for article 49 of the constitution of Iran ruled that the ownership of farmland by a number of Baha’is in the rural village of Ivel in Mazandaran province is illegal. Imagine if someone came along to you, Dr Huq, and said, “We’re going to take your house and you have no way of stopping it,” or said to the Minister, “We’re taking your property away as well, and legally it’s impossible to do very much about it.”

A further ruling from the court of appeal on 13 October 2020 ruled against the legitimacy of the ownership of land of 27 Baha’is. Members will see who are the targets. It appears to be the final step in the actions of the Iranian authorities to dispossess those Baha’is of their homes and lands in Ivel. There has been a movement across the free democratic world for those in authority to stand up for the Baha’is, and to do their best to try to raise awareness.

The judgment of branch 54 of the special court for article 49 of the constitution, issued on 1 August 2020, and a further extraordinary session of the court of appeal on 13 October 2020 appear to have closed off any final opportunities for the Baha’is of Ivel to defend their right of ownership to their land—land that they have cultivated and lived off, and that others have lived off as well. That land is their source of economic sustenance. Their lives, and their efforts and energies, have been poured into that land over the years.

It is also of note that on 13 October the appeal court order endorsed the decision in favour of the execution of Imam Khomeini’s order, known as EIKO, in the city of Sari to sell the farmlands owned by the Baha’is. Again it seems to me, and I suspect to everyone else, that it was specifically directed at them, and it was done, as I will illustrate, because of a certain religious belief. The Baha’is now look to the voice of the international community, including Members of Parliament and our Minister, as the only recourse to defend the rights of this community of innocent rural farmers.

We have the privilege in this House of being able to speak up for those who have no one to speak up for them. I know that you, Dr Huq, the Minister and others have done so regularly, because we see wrong in the world and we want to speak up for other people. We do it because it is right and because we have the opportunity to do so in this House. I assure the Baha’is that today’s debate is for them. It is a debate for those people we may never meet in this world. It is a debate on behalf of the Baha’is, whom I have a passion for and believe I should speak up for.

I record my appreciation of the tweet issued by the Minister of State, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, on 12 February, expressing deep concern at the expropriation of land from the Baha’is in Ivel. I am very encouraged by Lord Ahmad, a voice so often for those who have no voice to speak up for them. In his tweet, he said:

“The UK is deeply concerned by reports of expropriation & repossession of land owned by Baha’i communities in Ivel. This follows a worrying escalation in long-standing persecution against religious minorities in Iran. We will always stand up for people of all faiths & beliefs.”

Sheikh Ibrahim Mogra, an imam from Leicester and the chair of the Virtue Ethics Foundation also released a statement, in which he said:

“I am greatly alarmed to learn about the prejudicial ruling of two courts in the Islamic Republic of Iran confiscating land belonging to the Bahá’ís in the rural village of Ivel.”

Importantly—if it is being done because of religion, which it clearly is—he also said:

“Islam does not permit a government to confiscate land from citizens just because they follow a different religion or ideology.”

He went on to say that

“the verdicts must be confronted and overturned.”

Clearly, world opinion and religious opinion is very concerned.

The Baha’is’ lawyers were given no opportunity to see the court documents, to prepare a defence, or to present any arguments back in October 2020. This case could set an alarming precedent in nullifying Baha’is’ right to ownership of land. This is the latest in a pattern of persecution for the Baha’is in Ivel. The community has experienced taxes on their properties, arson, imprisonment, and expulsion as direct consequences against them. Numerous official documents reveal religious prejudice as the motive behind land confiscations, and some records show that the Baha’is have been told their properties will be returned to them if they convert to Islam. If they convert—do away with their own religion and take another—they are told that it will be okay, so this is very clearly direct action against them that is politically and religiously motivated.

Others across the world have supported the Baha’is in Ivel. The former Canadian Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, is among a group of more than 50 high-ranking legal professionals who have written an open letter to Iran’s chief justice, Ebrahim Raisi. The letter condemns the court ruling to confiscate the Baha’is’ property and violations against the Baha’i community. It states that

“Under the current Iranian government, Bahá'ís have experienced home raids, attacks on properties, confiscation of possessions, dismissals from employment, denial of access to higher education, imprisonment, and execution”—

it can be as final as that. The letter also states that

“Bahá'ís have sought legal remedies, but to little avail”,

and that:

“The 2020 rulings now establish a dangerous constitutional precedent of judicially sanctioned confiscation that nullifies legitimate property interests based only on the owners’ religious affiliation, thus departing not only from international human rights standards but also from the text and intent of the Iranian constitution itself.”

Germany’s federal Government commissioner for global freedom of religion issued a press release as well, calling on the Iranian Government to

“recognise the Baha’i as a religious community and to respect the rights of all religious and faith minorities.”

Officials, including politicians from Brazil, Sweden and Canada, have also expressed their support for the Baha’is, so this has taken on an international flavour now, which I think is very important.

In the Iranian province of Mazandaran, persecution has escalated. The APPG warns in its report that the crisis of the covid pandemic could provide a backdrop for a ratcheting up of repression of religious minorities, and that appears to be taking a more ominous shape within that province, in which the village of Ivel is located. I have expressed concern about this in the Chamber to other Ministers before: I have always felt that countries that are indiscriminate in how they target ethnic groups or religious minorities can do so under the cover of the covid pandemic. On 9 March 2021, the Fédération internationale des ligues des droits de l’homme—that is a good Ulster-Scots go at French—an international NGO, issued a press release that gave notice of a directive that reveals plans by authorities in the Iranian province of Mazandaran to intensify their suppression of Baha’is and other religious minorities. It is not just the Baha’is: if someone is of a different religion from Islam, the state religion, then they are targeted, but today we want to speak specifically about the Baha’is.

The text of a directive from the Commission on Ethnicities, Sects and Religions in the town of Sari in Mazandaran, dated 21 September 2020, which has the authority of the highest levels of the Iranian Government, calls for the rigorous control of the Baha’i community in virtually all aspects of life. They can no longer practise their religion; they can no longer have individual thought. According to the Iranian Government, they have to rigorously adhere to what that Government want them to do. It worries me when I read and observe what is going on. This directive mandates the identification of Baha’i students in order to bring them to Islam—in other words, they cannot be a Baha’i and cannot have a different faith, but have to have the faith that the Iranian Government want them to have. The economic strangulation of the Baha’is is another way of making that happen.

These sinister instructions are similar in nature to documents that Members who follow the plight of the Baha’is in Iran will recognise. The language draws directly from the Iranian Government policies to suppress Baha’is found in an infamous 1991 memorandum on “the Baha’i question”, and in the 2005 letter issued to the highest levels of the security forces for monitoring and identifying all Baha’is. This came from the top: the order to take on the Baha’is came from the highest level. Both documents were confidential communications that were uncovered and brought to light by the former UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the former UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief: the late Maurice Copithorne of Canada, and the late Asma Jahangir of Pakistan. I pay tribute to their memory and their service to human rights.

In recent years, the Baha’is in Iran have faced increasingly harsh treatment. Attacks on homes, businesses and personal and community property are reportedly increasing. Baha’i cemeteries have been desecrated, seized and bulldozed. Family connections with former generations, and with the land that they love, are being bulldozed as well. In January 2021, the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Javaid Rehman—in conjunction with the APPG on Pakistan minorities, which I chair—published a report outlining human rights concerns in the country. Among other issues, the special rapporteur noted deep concerns that discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities persists, including forced evictions and land confiscation in minority areas. It is probably easier to do it in minority areas, because there are not many people there. In 2020, hundreds of people were reportedly arrested for resisting land confiscation and house demolitions—as anyone would if someone was taking their house—despite presenting evidence of ownership. Even when someone owns a house and shows their ownership, they still do their worst.

The report notes that in November 2020, over 100 Iranian security agents undertook raids, without cause, against the Baha’is, reportedly demanding deeds and confiscating items. Their protection from the security forces and authorities is zero, which has led to longer-term fears about the widespread and unlawful seizure of Baha’i-owned property. In a statement to the UN Human Rights Council in March 2021, Javaid Rehman said:

“I am disturbed at the harassment, arbitrary arrests and imprisonments of religious minorities, particularly members of the Baha’i faith who have experienced a new wave of house raids and land confiscations in recent months.”

A global campaign calling for an end to the persecution of the Baha’is, and the return of ancestral lands that were confiscated by an Iranian constitutional court in August 2020, has also been gaining international support in the last few months. Today’s debate enables us to highlight these issues and then ask the Minister to respond on the Government’s behalf.

The September 2020 directive calls on the Mazandaran authorities to review the latest status of the “perverse Baha’i sect”—their words, not ours, obviously—and states that the Baha’is are to be rigorously controlled. My goodness—it scares me to think what that means. The directive proposes a detailed plan at the highest level for cultural and educational institutions. These are ominous and alarming developments, representing a sharp acceleration in a range of pressures on the Baha’is in Mazandaran. If the collective voice of the international community does not deter the Iranian authorities from the unjust repression of innocent citizens from a minority community, there must be concerns that the invidious rise in persecution could widen to other regions of Iran, or indeed to other religious minority groups in other parts of the world. It is clear to me and my colleagues in the APPG on international freedom of religion or belief that the plight of the 27 Baha’is in a village in northern Iran echoes the experiences and travails of many people of various faiths and communities across the world, and we have seen that escalating throughout the pandemic.

In March of this year, I chaired a webinar with the Baha’is to explore this subject, and I wish to share two further case studies of the pressures on the land rights of religious minority communities. The webinar was helpful but reinforced our fears about cases that reached beyond Iran. At a webinar on 4 March, Pablo Vargas of Impolso 18, a human rights organisation, gave testimony about concerns in Mexico. Mexico is an inherently pluralistic country with a large Catholic population and a small Protestant population. Despite that, there have been cases of human rights infringements against religious minorities, especially people who are members of indigenous communities and also from religious minorities.

Article 24 of the Mexican constitution guarantees freedom of religion or belief, yet Christian Solidarity Worldwide, one of those excellent organisations that speak up for Christians and other religious groups across the world, has expressed concern about a culture of impunity and a reluctance to prosecute those responsible for criminal acts such as violations of the freedom of religion or belief. Mr Vargas reported expulsions of indigenous Protestant Christians from ejidos, areas of communal land used for agriculture, which families are granted the right to cultivate. There are also reports of seizures of land in Mexico.

Again, for the benefit of this debate Christian Solidarity Worldwide kindly supplied my office with a case study of the phenomenon that Mr Vargas describes. It states the following:

“In Cuamontax in the state of Hidalgo, a family was expelled from the community on 20 July 2019 for belonging to a minority religion. Their home was looted and destroyed, and their ejido”—

their property rights—

“were taken away. In August 2020, the community leaders harvested the crops that this family had been cultivating on their land. This was a demonstration to that family that the family is no longer recognised as part of the community and almost two years later the family is not even allowed to enter the community.”

Imagine that happening—every one of us will feel angst in our souls, our hearts and our minds for those people.

Another powerful testimony was offered at the webinar by Max Joseph, a researcher on Iraq for minority rights groups. He spoke in depth about the plight of the Assyrian Christians and noted that land ownership is one reflection of shifting demographics, whereby Assyrians, Yazidis and other ancient Christian communities have suffered repeated land seizures as a process of ethno-nationalism, particularly across the 20th century, which has manifested itself in crimes as severe as genocide. We are extremely concerned about that.

One example was a case in 2018 where Christian MPs submitted legislation to the Iraqi Parliament calling for the return of over 60,000 properties in Baghdad alone, but to no avail. One comment by Mr Joseph captures the injustice of the theft of land rights for many minority communities. He observed:

“Land theft is something that the vulnerable suffer from the dominant.”

That sums up the situation really well, and it is happening in Iran, Iraq and Mexico.

The final speaker that day, Stephen Powles, QC, of Doughty Street Chambers, expressed the hope that what is lost may one day be retrieved. Certainly, the purpose of this debate is to try to make that happen. But how much better it would be if the lands, farms and rights of the Baha’is, the Christians, the Muslims and all communities of faith and belief facing persecution in our world today were not lost in the first place. It would be great if that was the case, but unfortunately it is not.

In conclusion, I have some requests to make of the Minister. Bleak as this situation is, I wish to record the hopeful signs of global solidarity. I am encouraged when I realise that those of standing in 50 countries across the world are prepared to sign a letter and voice their opinion and express global solidarity for the right of freedom of religion or belief, which these cases have elicited. The Baha’i community has received an extraordinary wave of support in response to these injustices. The global outcry has included the voices of Government officials, parliamentarians, civil society organisations and faith leaders of all faiths, which is really important. It underlines that this situation is wrong, morally and legally, and we need to speak up.

It is notable that prominent among these voices are prominent Muslim organisations and learned Islamic scholars who are speaking out. That is really important, because it shows the solidarity of the world among those of different religious persuasions who see the danger and are speaking out.

There have also been statements of support from the American Islamic Congress, the Canadian Council of Imams and a respected faith leader known to many in this House, Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra, a visiting Imam to De Montfort University. He has called upon the Iranian Chief Justice to address this injustice, adding:

“Islam does not permit a government to confiscate land from citizens just because they follow a different religion or ideology”—

and, I want to make clear, nor should it.

Those of us who labour in the sphere of freedom of religion and belief understand full well that there are bonds of friendship and solidarity between Baha’is, Muslims, Christians, Jews and people of all faiths and those of secular and humanist beliefs. This is not a clash of religions. This is a struggle for all people of faith and belief to enjoy the rights enshrined in article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights, against the abuses and the persecution carried out by those in authority who deny them the right to believe and live by their beliefs. Parliamentarians of all parties here and in the other place share the view that informed and calibrated accountability for abuses of religious minorities has a place in bilateral and multilateral efforts to dissuade authorities in Iran, Iraq, Mexico and elsewhere from acts of persecution or from granting impunity to forces that commit such acts.

I welcome a commitment from the Minister—I am in no doubt at all that it is forthcoming, but it is good to have it on the record—and any public statement that Ministers and ambassadors of the UK Government might make on these issues, to continue the process of accountability. I also thank the Foreign Secretary and Ministers and civil servants of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I know they are very aware of these matters.

It is time for us in this House, collectively, from all political parties and from all religious views, to stand up and show the Baha’is that we are standing by them. The fact that other Governments and parliamentarians from across the world have done the same should encourage us. It should encourage the Baha’is. I know whenever the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief first started, we recognised that it was our job—I believe it is my job, as a Christian—to speak up not only for those of Christian beliefs, but for those of other beliefs and, indeed, of no belief. Today, I am standing up for the Baha’is. I hope that our Minister and our Government will do the same and show solidarity for the Baha’is, who need our help at this time.

14:02

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) [V]]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair for this afternoon’s debate, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this important debate on land rights for religious minorities, including the Baha’i community in Iran. I thank him for his typically detailed and passionate speech on behalf of yet another voiceless minority group around the world. We have relied so much in this Parliament on his good work.

We heard about the issue of minority communities and the access that they have to their traditional homelands. As he pointed out, it is a real, live and relevant issue, nowhere more so than in the middle east, particularly in Iran and Iraq. I will address the Christian and Yazidi minorities there, too, a little later.

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman made specific mention of the Baha’i community in Iran. There is overwhelming evidence that the 350,000-strong Baha’i community, which constitutes the largest non-Muslim community in the country, continues to suffer systematic persecution simply because of their religious beliefs and their decision to exercise their fundamental right to practice their faith.

Like the hon. Gentleman, many of us will have Baha’i communities in our constituencies—I know I do. I have met them many times in Helensburgh. I know the people they are, I can see the good work that they do and I am proud to call them my friends.

For more than 30 years the Iranian authorities have been absolutely determined to marginalise and remove the social and economic rights of the Baha’i community, with instructions from the Supreme Cultural Revolution Council explicitly stating that official dealings with the Baha’i community should be conducted in such a way

“that their progress and development are blocked”.

It is a remarkable and appalling indictment of the Government in Tehran that they behave in such a manner.

As a result, the Baha’i community is regularly demonised in the official state media and by clerics from the pulpits in the mosques. The authorities have actively and officially encouraged blatant discrimination—discrimination that, as we have heard, all too often has led to violence, murder and the confiscation of property and land. Just last year, in a further escalation of the official Iranian repression of the Baha’is, the Government in Tehran officially barred Iranian Baha’i citizens from holding national identity cards. In effect, that stripped them of their basic rights and access to the most fundamental services as citizens of their own country.

There is little argument that Iran’s Baha’i community is among the most persecuted religious minorities in the world. As the 2019 report of the United Nations rapporteur to Iran says, in the eyes of the Iranian Government the Baha’is are considered to be “unprotected infidels”, leaving them very much at the mercy of the state and of the Government. As a result of this state-sanctioned repression, in recent months the Baha’i community experienced a whole new wave of house raids and land confiscation. The hon. Gentleman highlighted that, like so many other regimes, the Iranian Government used covid as a smokescreen to cover their actions. In November last year, without warning the Iranian security forces raided the village of Ivel where the Baha’i community make up about half the population and have been settled for more than 150 years. Among their other crimes, the Iranian security forces unlawfully seized Baha’i property, with hundreds reportedly arrested for resisting house demolitions and land confiscation even though they presented proof that they were the legal owners.

The Baha’i community in Iran is not rich. It is not powerful. The Baha’is do not have deep pockets and they do not have influential friends. The Baha’is are often hard-working, low-income agricultural workers with no other assets or means of earning a living aside from their homes or their farmlands. This means that state-sponsored, court-sanctioned land theft takes away everything they have.

What happened in Ivel was not just the judicially sanctioned confiscation of property and land based solely on the owner’s religious affiliation; it was a flagrant breach of international human rights that also flies in the face of the Iranian constitution. Article 13 of the constitution provides protection of named minorities such as the Zoroastrians and Christian and Jewish communities, but it specifically excludes the Baha’i. Article 19, however, says explicitly that

“regardless of the ethnic group or tribe to which they belong”

everyone in Iran has equal rights. That is reinforced by article 20, which says:

“All citizens of the country, both men and women, equally enjoy the protection of the law and enjoy all human, political, economic, social, and cultural rights”.

Yet we know that the reality is very different. The Baha’i community, despite the protections afforded by the constitution, is afforded absolutely no protection in Iran.

What is happening to the Baha’i community in Iran is deeply concerning, and we in the SNP strongly believe that freedom of religion and belief is a fundamental right that cannot be taken away from an individual by any Government. Iran has to know that the world is watching. While we have known for several years that Iran seems to care very little about its international reputation or how it is perceived globally, that does not mean that we can stop applying pressure where we can and when we can. We will continue to support in any way possible any initiative that will bring pressure to bear on the Iranian Government to cease this awful persecution of a peaceful religious minority. We hope that as well as the Minister highlighting to his Iranian counterpart the things that have been said this afternoon, the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, will take the matter directly to the Prime Minister, and seek for urgent diplomatic pressure to be exerted by the UK Government on the Iranian Government to fulfil the human rights obligations that they have signed up to. Perhaps we could ask the Minister to consider following the example of the German federal Government commissioner for global freedom of religion, who has called for Iran to recognise the Baha’i religion under article 13 of the Iranian constitution.

As the hon. Member for Strangford has said, land rights for religious minorities is not solely an issue for the Baha’is or Iran. The atrocities perpetrated by Daesh in Syria and Iraq in the last few years, and the chaos in the aftermath of its military defeat, had a devastating long-term impact on minority religious communities across the region. In Iraq, Christian, Yazidi and even Jewish communities that once flourished alongside their Muslim neighbours are decimated and dispersed—unable or, in many cases unwilling, to return, because of security fears. Persecution and bloody sectarian violence have reduced the number of Christians living in the Nineveh plain and the Erbil region from 1.5 million at the start of this century to a mere fraction of that number today.

The Yazidi community, likewise, have for centuries lived and worked on the land around the Sinjar and, after the most awful genocide at the hands of Daesh, when their people were murdered and forced to flee, their population, which was about 700,000 a decade ago, is less than half that today. Given that the security situation is so fragile and that almost none of the Islamic State perpetrators of that Yazidi genocide have been brought to justice—and still, today, 3,000 Yazidi women and children are missing—how could they, and why would they, go back to their homes? Also, tragically, the Jewish community has of course all but disappeared, having been forced out of Iraq over many years.

On Tuesday night I was privileged to be asked to chair the launch of the Aid to the Church in Need 2021 report on religious freedom in the world. It is an extremely important and detailed piece of work running to several hundred pages, and I commend it to all colleagues with an interest in freedom of religion or belief around the world, and in the basic human right to exercise the freedom to worship and freedom of expression. One of the speakers at Tuesday’s launch was Archbishop Nathanael Semaan who joined us from the diocese of Erbil. He gave a first-hand account of how minority faith groups have been systematically cleared from Iraq in recent years, and made the point that although Daesh may have been beaten militarily, the mentality and mindset that allowed it to flourish in the first place has not gone away. He also pointed to the Iraqi constitution, which despite recognising the right of non-Muslim faith communities to exist, relegates them to the status of second-class citizens, because it gives constitutional recognition to the supremacy of Islam.

The archbishop made the very relevant point that the three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all have long and deep roots back to the land that we now know as Iraq. Abraham himself was reportedly born in the town of Ur Kaśdim in the south of the country. As the archbishop said, Iraq has a rich history of religious diversity, and an Iraq without that rich diversity is simply not Iraq. Although he was speaking specifically about Iraq, his words could easily be applied to many other countries in the region and indeed across the world, where many faith groups and communities have lived side by side in mutual respect and tolerance for many years. In too many cases, that is something that has gone completely, and in other areas we can see its final disintegration. It is incumbent on us to speak out, just as it is on Governments to do what they can to defend the human rights of minority communities who face oppression and discrimination for nothing more than holding fast to a faith or belief.

In conclusion, I thank my friend, the hon. Member for Strangford, for securing this debate, for once again shining a light where it needed to be shone, and generally for the tireless work that he does day in, day out on behalf of religious communities around the world as chair of the all-party group for international freedom of religion or belief. The world is a better place for the work that he does and for having him in it. I am grateful to him.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

From Scotland, we now go to Wales and shadow Minister Wayne David.

14:15

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Dr Huq. I want to echo the comments of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) and give my warmest congratulations to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate and for his detailed and passionate exposé of the situation faced by the Baha’i community in Iran. It is important that we have these kinds of debates because the voice of the British Parliament is strongest when parliamentarians, irrespective of parties, speak as one. It is significant that I agreed totally with what has been said by the hon. Members for Strangford and for Argyll and Bute. No doubt I will agree also with what the Minister says. It is important that we put aside our political differences on a raft of issues and speak with one voice in defence of religious freedom and give maximum support to the Baha’i community in Iran.

A lot of people do not realise that the Baha’i religion was founded in Iran in the last century but one. Iran has the largest non-Muslim religious minority: some 350,000 people adhering to that faith. Yet that religion is not mentioned in the Iranian constitution, even though other religions are. It is not a question of simply ignoring that religion. A green light is being given for a host of different persecutions.

As has been referred to already, in 2019 the annual report of the United Nations special rapporteur for Iran said that Iran regarded the Baha’i faith as something that was beyond the pale, and it referred to Baha’is in particular as “unprotected infidels”. That has meant we have seen the most appalling persecution of Baha’is for the past 40 years and more. We have seen persecution, intimidation, and hundreds of Baha’is imprisoned and even executed. They have been excluded in large numbers from higher education and have been prevented from finding work in many parts of the country. We have even seen Baha’i cemeteries being desecrated. That is totally and unequivocally unacceptable and needs to be condemned in the strongest possible terms.

Significantly, the situation was referred to in a statement made to the UN Human Rights Council in March 2021 when Javaid Rehman stated:

“I am disturbed at the harassment, arbitrary arrests and imprisonments of religious minorities, particularly members of the Baha’i faith who have experienced a new wave of house raids and land confiscations in recent months.”

Those land confiscations are something that the hon. Member for Strangford rightly focused on.

In the village of Ivel in the province of Mazandaran in northern Iran, a Baha’i community has flourished for the past 150 years, but in June 2010 the Iranian authorities sanctioned the demolition of 50 Baha’i homes, and we have seen evictions and people cast out as a consequence. The international community, and the United Nations in particular, is extremely concerned about the situation. Mr Brian Mulroney, a former Canadian Prime Minister, to whom Members have referred, recently signed a high-profile open letter signed by more than 50 judges, lawyers and former Attorneys General addressed specifically to Iran’s Chief Justice, Ebrahim Raisi, stating that the court ruling that apparently has given sanction to the demolitions was a departure

“not only from international human rights standards but also from the text and intent of the Iranian constitution itself.”

That was a telling statement from someone held in enormous international esteem. Strong statements have followed from Canadian politicians, in particular, Swedish politicians and German politicians. We have even seen a powerful seminar held in the European Parliament, where the unanimity of concerns was noticeable. I hope that Britain will add to the huge groundswell of opinion that is in evidence, and articulately and forcefully place our condemnation on record.

I look forward to the Minister’s response to the debate and I am sure that, given Britain’s consistency on human rights and our adherence to international law, he will make a strong statement, sending the message from the British Parliament that all politicians, irrespective of our political differences, are strongly in favour of religious freedom and are firmly behind the Baha’i religious minority in Iran.

14:22

[The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Dr Huq.

I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing the debate. I pay tribute to his considerable efforts and his tirelessness, not just as a member of the APPG on the Baha’i faith but as chair of the APPG on freedom of religion and belief.

I echo the words of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), who was right to say that the world, including Iran, should take note of the fact that from every corner of the United Kingdom and every political corner of the House there is unanimity of voice on the importance of the issue. I am glad that he made that point at the conclusion of his speech, enabling me to echo it at the start of mine.

The issue of inequality in land rights affects millions of people around the world, and it is of particular concern, as the hon. Member for Strangford said, to the most vulnerable and minority groups, including religious minorities.

The UK Government support good land governance as a key pillar of inclusive and sustainable economic development around the world. Securing land and property rights is necessary to release other human rights: the right to food, the right to water and the right to housing, to name just a few. The UK Government fund development efforts to support effective protections against forcible evictions and to facilitate responsible investment in land, which we believe are integral to economic growth, rural livelihoods, conflict prevention, environmental sustainability and fundamental human rights.

The House is well aware that we monitor human rights in Iran very closely. The recent deterioration in the land rights of religious minorities in Iran is deeply troubling. Our bleak assessment is that Iran continues to violate human rights across the board, including, sadly, the right to freedom of religion or belief. While some faiths in Iran, most notably Christianity and Judaism, benefit from constitutional protection, in truth, there is widespread discrimination against all religious minorities, but it is markedly worse for unrecognised faiths, including the Baha’i.

The Baha’i community in Iran faces systematic discrimination, as the hon. Member for Strangford outlined. They face harassment and targeting. Baha’i-owned shops and businesses have been forced to close across the country by the Iranian authorities, and the state’s efforts to identify, monitor and arbitrarily detain Baha’i people show little sign of abating. Those patterns of repression extend beyond property rights. We have seen Baha’i students, as the hon. Gentleman said, pressured to convert to Islam or be denied an education altogether.

The Government share the view of the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran. Discrimination against the Baha’i community is legally sanctioned by a lack of constitutional recognition in Iranian law and by the absence of other meaningful legal protections. Alarmingly, our assessment suggests that there has been a rapid and severe decline in the rights to freedom of religion or belief in Iran over the last year, particularly for the Baha’i community. Arrests of Baha’i followers have increased. The sentences handed out have been arbitrary and disproportionately lengthy. Meanwhile, the Iranian authorities at local and national level have appeared to intensify plans to suppress religious minorities.

In late 2020, we understand several court judgments in Iran ordered the seizure of farmland from Baha’i communities in the village of Ivel in Mazandaran province. These lands have been farmed by Baha’i families for more than 150 years. While the Iranian Government have reportedly been attempting to expel the farmers since the 1980s, the recent court ruling against the legitimacy of Baha’i ownership of land has had a profoundly negative impact. It presents serious wider implications for the property rights of other unrecognised religious minorities.

Members will be aware that the UK is committed to defend the freedoms of religion or belief for all and to promote respect between different religions and non-religious communities. We have concerns, and when we have such concerns we raise them directly with Governments, including at ministerial level. We do not shy away from challenging those who we believe are not meeting their obligations, whether publicly or in private. We remain deeply concerned about the violations of the freedom of religion or belief in many parts of the world, including in Iran. Where this right is under attack, other human rights are almost always under threat as well.

In response to the reports of persecution of the Baha’i, the Government have taken the following steps in recent months. At the Human Rights Council, the UK called on Iran to end the discrimination and persecution of religious minorities, which continue to persist, particularly towards the Baha’i and Christian converts. On 12 February, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon issued a statement expressing deep concern about reports of expropriation and repossession of land owned by Baha’i communities in Ivel. The UK continues to co-sponsor the UN Third Committee resolution on the situation of human rights in Iraq. The resolution expressed serious concerns about Iran’s violations committed against unrecognised religious minorities, including the Baha’is. Our efforts ensure there remains widespread global support to highlight and call out these issues.

In October 2020, we made a national statement at the UN Third Committee, focusing particularly on our concerns about the lack of freedom of religion or belief in Iran, and the treatment of religious minorities. The Government have consistently made clear to the Iranians our concerns at persistent violations of freedom of religion or belief, and many other human rights. Iran must comply with its treaty obligations to uphold human rights of believers of formally protected religions and of unrecognised ones.

We will continue to hold Iran to account on a wide range of human rights issues, including land rights, both through bilateral contacts directly with the Iranian Government and on the international stage, including using our membership of the Human Rights Council and at the United Nations, alongside like-minded partners.

On our broader action to support freedom of religion or belief, on 20 December 2020, the Prime Minister reaffirmed his commitment by appointing my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) as his special envoy. Mrs Bruce works with Ministers, officials and other parties to deliver the Government’s aim of seeing everyone, everywhere able to have and practice a faith or belief, or to have no religious belief at all, in accordance with their own conscience. In fact, her first joint external meeting, alongside Lord Ahmad, was with representatives of the Baha’is.

The Government have excellent links with the Baha’i community in London and more widely, and we continue to work with faith leaders to advocate for the rights of their communities in Iran and elsewhere. In November 2020, the Minister responsible for human rights, my noble friend Lord Ahmad, further underlined the UK’s commitment to freedom of religion or belief for all at a number of international meetings. These included speaking at the ministerial meeting to advance freedom of religion or belief and at the Ministers’ forum of the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance. I hope the House is reassured that we will continue to call out such violations for as long as Iran continues to commit them.

While we rightly discuss Iran’s violations towards religious minorities and its citizens, in response to a number of points raised by hon. Members I would like to take this opportunity to set out our wider engagement with Iran. The Government have been consistently clear that we want to put the relationship between the UK and Iran on a better footing, as we continue to hold Iran to account for its human rights record, including on the freedom of religion or belief.

We strongly believe that maintaining diplomatic relations will help to achieve our vision for a non-nuclear Iran—an Iran that acts as a responsible regional power and an Iran that does not pose a threat to UK and the UK’s interests. We maintain that that diplomacy is also the best way to secure the release of all arbitrarily detained dual British nationals. The Government will work with all international partners to deliver those shared goals and to keep our diplomatic door open for discussion on a wide range of UK interests.

Let me end by reassuring the House that our commitment to defend freedom of religion or belief for all and to promote respect between religious and non-religious communities endures. Let me also assure hon. Members that we will continue to monitor and assess the threats to the Baha’is and other minorities, including through violations of their land rights. We believe that one of the most effective ways to tackle injustices is to encourage states to uphold their human rights obligations. I assure the House that the Government remain committed to encouraging Iran to respect human rights, and calling it out on the international stage when it fails to do so. We will continue to make representations on those issues at every level, at every opportunity.

14:35

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) and for Caerphilly (Wayne David), and the Minister, for supporting the Baha’is very clearly in word and, I believe, in person. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute referred to how Iran needs to know that the world is listening. The hon. Member for Caerphilly said that there must be a strong message from Parliament, and I think that the Minister gave exactly that. He outlined the Government’s position and strategy, and Baha’is across the world should take some solace from the fact that this House has rallied to their cause, heard their pleas and responded in a positive fashion. I appreciate that.

The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute referred to the land grab as real and relevant, and to the fact that we all have Baha’is in our constituencies. It is not just that. We recognise that, but the people of the Baha’i faith in our constituencies tell us what they want us to do, and bring it to our attention. Today, we have brought it to the attention of all other countries. I think he referred to shining a light where it needs to be to shone, which he did. The hon. Member for Caerphilly referred to the importance of Parliament in what it does here, and to the prominent legal authorities that have made a statement. If people of legal standing in all countries across the world do that, legally it speaks volumes.

I am particularly heartened by the Minister’s response. I never doubted that it would be good, but he did exactly what I think we all wanted, and it is on the record. It is not just words, by the way; it is actions, which our Government and our Minister are doing with passion and belief. I take encouragement from his comments about bringing up human rights at the UN, and highlighting FORB issues wherever they can.

It is also important—it is very good to have it on the record—that the Government want to have a wider engagement with Iran, and a better relationship to maintain diplomacy. The Minister spoke about the grabbing of the land rights, but it is not just that; it is the Baha’is’ right to water, education, food, health and jobs. All those things interact. There are fundamental human rights issues, and a pattern of oppression.

Clearly, the UK is committed to freedom of religion and belief, as has been said. We hope that the Baha’is in Iran, and those who are colleagues and constituents, will be encouraged. Land theft is something that the vulnerable suffer at the hands of the dominant. We want to change that, and today this House has made it happen. Thank you, Dr Huq, for chairing the debate. It is not often said, but I thank all the staff as well for what they do. They make it happen. I have no idea how the technology works, by the way, but I know that they do—and thank goodness they are doing it and not me.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered land rights for religious minorities including Baha’is in Iran.

14:35

Sitting suspended.

Covid-19: Social Care

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Westminster Hall

[Derek Twigg in the Chair]

15:14

[Derek Twigg (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 are also suspensions between each debate.

I remind Members attending physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of the Westminster Hall debates. Members are expected to remain for the entire debate. I 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. I remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.

15:16

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered social care and the covid-19 outbreak.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, and to speak in this debate in person—for me, for the first time in the Boothroyd Room. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this debate, and to my co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on adult social care, the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), for co-sponsoring it.

The APPG on adult social care has a working group of representatives from the social care sector, including not-for-profit care home providers, sector-wide bodies such as the National Care Forum and Skills for Care, and people with lived experience of managing their own care at home. From the start of the covid-19 pandemic, the working group met weekly to discuss the experience on the ground of each of the membership organisations and the individuals represented on it. I am also grateful to the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), and to the Minister herself for meeting the working group during that time.

Week by week, those meetings gave a vital live insight into the multiple devastating impacts of the covid-19 pandemic on the care sector. They often provided a reality check against what the Government were announcing. The right hon. Member for Ashford and I felt strongly that it was important to bring the weight of this collective experience before the House so that it may inform urgent discussions about the future of social care.

At the outset, it is important to acknowledge the diversity of the social care sector, as there is always a tendency to focus mainly on care homes for older adults when we talk about social care. It also encompasses care homes for working-age adults and people who receive all types of care in their own homes and in supported housing.

The covid-19 pandemic took a dreadful toll across the whole sector. Perhaps the most shocking figure, well reported, is that between March and June 2020, 40% of all deaths from covid-19 were care home residents. The deaths have continued, with a further 12,000 deaths of care home residents since January 2021 alone. More than 34,000 people with dementia have died from covid-19, and tens of thousands more have seen their condition deteriorate at an increased pace due to limited support and contact with loved ones. Those figures mask a human story: the tens of thousands of families grieving the loss of a precious loved one, remembering the full richness of the lives they lived, and the thousands more families grieving the loss of precious time that they cannot get back with loved ones whose dementia has deteriorated.

At least 850 social care workers have died due to covid-19. That figure is likely to be higher given the lack of availability of testing to confirm diagnosis in the early weeks of the pandemic. The vast majority of the care workers are women, many are black, Asian and from other ethnic minorities, and many had dedicated their lives to looking after other people. Each one leaves a grieving family, and we must acknowledge their service and sacrifice.

The figures also belie the diversity of the social care sector, because they do not include the impact on people receiving care in their homes, who were often vulnerable to coronavirus infection from carers visiting multiple homes. Sometimes, they felt unable to receive care at all, due to the risk of infection, resulting in untold hardship and difficulty. The figures also do not include the impact on unpaid carers, often left isolated and unsupported, or the impact on people living in unregulated supported housing.

Each week, the APPG working group heard of the problems accessing personal protective equipment and covid-19 testing. Providers were operating in the dark, with their hands tied behind their back, unable to know who was carrying covid-19 in their care homes and without access to full infection control measures.

Covid-19 ripped through many care homes, as the access to testing and urgent need to free up hospital beds for covid patients meant that undiagnosed covid-positive patients continued to be discharged from hospitals into care homes. The completely unacceptable blanket use of “do not resuscitate” orders for care home residents further speaks to the disregard for the most vulnerable members of our communities at the start of the pandemic.

I pay tribute to social care workers who stepped up to do extraordinary things in these horrendous circumstances —staff who moved into care homes, leaving their families in order to avoid the risk that they were a source of infection; staff who, again and again, held the hands of the residents in their care as they lay dying, when their loved ones were unable to be there; and staff who went out of their way to facilitate FaceTime calls to maintain contact with relatives who could not visit. Social care staff must be recognised for their immense contribution during the pandemic.

I will dwell for a moment on the mental health impacts of the pandemic, in the light of the situation that I have described. It is easy to forget that care homes are communities. Staff look after the same residents week after week, and relationships become like family. Many staff who watched residents and colleagues dying from coronavirus have experienced the trauma of bereavement many times over during the past year. I recall listening to one social care worker describing the first time in many weeks that residents with dementia in her home were able to come together for a music therapy session. One resident, looking around the room, said, “Where is everyone?” not understanding that so many residents had passed away. It is heartbreaking.

Contrary to the words of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, there was no protective ring around care homes or other vulnerable residents receiving social care at the start of the pandemic. The need for urgent reform of social care has been known for a long time. We have had more than a decade of detailed cross-party work on social care. The funding gaps are quantified. The international best practice is well understood. The range of options available for reform are known. What has been lacking is the political will at the very top of Government to deliver it.

Despite the Prime Minister promising in July 2019 that a plan was ready and that he would begin cross-party talks, there has been no progress nearly two years on. The Government have published the NHS White Paper, which barely mentions social care. We are told that there will be a 10-year plan for social care, but for all those working in social care, and relying on social care day by day, reform is long overdue. They are struggling to understand why the Government have dragged their feet so much for so long, for a sector that has such a profound impact on quality of life for so many people every single day.

From the perspective of the APPG working group, what are the priorities for the Government as we reflect on the impact of the covid-19 pandemic on social care? First, the promised public inquiry on the covid-19 pandemic must include a separate strand on social care, so that the lessons can be learned for future pandemic planning and social care can be better protected the next time we face such a terrible challenge.

Secondly, the Government must start the long-promised cross-party talks. Social care needs long-term reform, based on cross-party agreement. That will not be achieved by the Government announcing plans at short notice and simply expecting everyone to vote for them. It needs a process, properly resourced and entered into in good faith, to secure that agreement.

Thirdly, it is vital that co-production is at the heart of social care reform. Social care reform must be delivered in partnership with those who live and breathe social care every single day as residents in care homes, people who manage their own care at home, older people and working-age adults, social care workers, unpaid carers and local authorities. The Government must set out a process for co-producing reform with those who have the most knowledge and experience to contribute.

Fourthly, reform must address pay and terms and conditions for social care workers. Social care work is highly skilled and demanding and can be very rewarding, but there is not a route to social care reform that avoids the issue of pay. As well as making a huge difference to the lives of millions of people every day, social care contributes £46.2 billion to the UK economy each year. However, in many parts of the country it is still possible to earn more at the local supermarket than in social care. That cannot continue.

I pay tribute to Unison for its work in establishing the ethical care charter, which guarantees domiciliary care workers the real living wage, and an end to zero-hours contracts and 15-minute visits. It has been adopted by many councils, including Southwark, which covers part of my constituency. It not only benefits care workers, but helps build resilience in the social care system. This should not be left to the discretion of individual councils. There is a chronic shortage of social care workers, and the trauma that many have experienced during the pandemic is likely to make the situation worse. Social care must be seen as a rewarding career in which everyone is paid a decent wage. There has been no commitment from the Government to increase pay for social care workers, and I call on the Minister to change that urgently.

On long-term reform, the Government’s proposals must be comprehensive. In the discussion of social care, all too often there is a failure to acknowledge the diversity of the sector and a dominant focus on care for older people, which ignores the needs of working-age adults, who account for almost half of all spending on adult social care. It also ignores the unregulated provision in which much care and support is delivered, and the needs of unpaid carers, who save the economy a colossal £132 billion each year.

We need a social care system that makes high-quality care and support available to everyone who needs it across a wide range of different settings. Although I hope the Minister will respond on the urgent need for long-term reform, there are also some very pressing short-term concerns that are important for the social care sector right now. The first is the question of additional funding for infection control. Social care providers have faced huge additional costs as a consequence of the need to use personal protective equipment and employ additional staff to cover for sickness absence, or to avoid agency staff travelling between care homes. Despite the anticipated release of covid restrictions in June, it is highly likely that the need for enhanced infection control in care homes, and for domiciliary care workers, will continue. However, the current funding allocation runs out in June. Can the Minister confirm whether ongoing funding will be provided for infection control in care homes beyond June?

Secondly, many care providers have raised with me the very restrictive nature of the 14-day quarantine requirement for residents who leave care homes, which means that if a resident leaves a care home, even for only a few hours, they have to quarantine for 14 days. Having entirely failed to protect care homes from coronavirus infections at the start of the pandemic, the Government are now applying a much more restrictive standard to care homes as restrictions are lifted elsewhere. Can the Minister please explain under what legislation the guidance could be enforced? What are the implications for the deprivation of liberty?

Importantly, what will be the implications for care home residents who wish to vote in local elections on 6 May? Requiring residents to isolate for 14 days after attending a polling station will surely deter many from exercising their democratic right to vote. In anticipation of the guidance, there has been no dedicated effort to encourage residents to vote by post, or to make them aware of the implications of it, and it is now too late to sign up for postal votes. Will the Minister consider moving to an approach based on testing, vaccination, social distancing and PPE in order to enable care home residents to leave their care homes for voting and other essential purposes?

In conclusion, I thank each and every social care worker for their immense contribution during the past year of the coronavirus pandemic, and I remember each worker, care home resident or vulnerable adult whose life has been lost. I pay tribute to the scientists and NHS workers who have delivered the vaccine roll-out with such rapid speed, so that we can now see the beginning of the end of this terrible pandemic. However, acknowledging the immense contribution of the social care sector at the frontline of the coronavirus pandemic can be done properly only by making a firm commitment on the funding and reform that social care so desperately needs, and I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to do that today.

15:29

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing it and on the way she opened it. It is the first time I have spoken in a Westminster Hall debate in the Boothroyd Room as well.

The covid-19 pandemic has exposed the failings of our social care system. With more than 30,000 deaths of care home residents, the care sector has been hit very hard over the past year. Of course, it is not just care home residents who have died from the virus. We know that people with learning disabilities were around six times more likely to die from covid-19 than the general population. Every single one of those deaths was a tragedy that we must never forget.

Beyond that appalling death toll, there are staff who worked far beyond what would normally be expected of them, many of whom have also been hit hard by the deaths of people they have known for years. There are also care home residents who have been cut off from friends and family for months on end and other care users who have gone without vital support in order to avoid contracting covid.

The Government made the fundamentally flawed decision at the start of the pandemic to allow local authorities to overlook their obligations under the Care Act 2014. While these social care easements were used by only a handful of local authorities, and have now been withdrawn, the reality is that many people using social care saw their services cut back.

Over two thirds of people with learning disabilities reported that they had their care packages cut in the first wave of the pandemic. The vast majority of these will not have lived in areas that implemented Care Act easements, meaning they should not have seen changes to their care packages. As a result, four out of five family carers have been forced to take on more unpaid care for the person with a learning disability. Nearly nine out of 10 people with a learning disability have not had all their social care reinstated, so their family members and carers are still having to increase the care they give.

Where services were still provided, restrictions on visiting often failed to consider the damage that isolation does to people’s wellbeing. I accept that there were times when visiting had to be paused, but the use of blanket bans and maintaining restrictions beyond those imposed on the rest of society left residents isolated and seriously impacted their wellbeing. The issue is exemplified by the current guidance on visits out of care homes, as referred to by my hon. Friend.

The Government have finally relented on allowing the over 65s to go on visits out of their care homes, but they are expected to isolate for two weeks on their return. As I raised with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care this week, a traveller from Brazil or India must isolate for only 10 days when they arrive in this country. Are we seriously saying that an older person on a visit, who sits outside for an hour or two with a family member who has tested negative, is more of a threat than someone coming from a country that is seeing a hundred times more covid cases than the UK? In addition, as my hon. Friend rightly raised, the issue of residents having to isolate after voting must be sorted out before election day.

Earlier in the pandemic, there was a blanket ban on visiting for people with learning disabilities living in care homes or those living in supported living settings. Many of the people covered by these bans lived alone in their own homes, with carers coming in to support them but, because of the lack of clear guidance, they were told they could not form a support bubble and they could not have visitors. This was disproportionate and it risked creating closed cultures in some services, because neither family members nor Care Quality Commission inspectors were able to visit to monitor the development of any inappropriate practices. At its worst, I heard from the mother of a young person with learning disabilities that the social worker had to ask care staff to bring the young person to the window to prove he was still alive.

I am glad that we have now moved away from the position of blanket bans, but people living in care homes and in supported living settings need a concrete reassurance that they will never again be denied fundamental rights, such as contact with family members. If this means implementing robust testing procedures for some time yet, that is what should happen.

I want to turn to care staff, whose work and commitment have gone above and beyond over the last year, because they deserve better support. As my hon. Friend said in her opening speech, at the start of the pandemic we heard about care home staff leaving their families to move into care homes full time, so they could ensure they did not unwittingly bring in the virus. Care staff also took on additional roles, because NHS staff switched to online consultations or were unable to visit due to ongoing covid outbreaks. Much of what care staff did was involved with end-of-life care.

The Select Committee on Health and Social Care heard from one member of care staff who told us this:

“We have done things that are on a par with other medical professions…we have a duty to care, and we do the job for a reason.”

If the crisis of the pandemic showed us anything, it was that without the hard work and commitment of care staff our care system simply would not work. We must remember the 470 social care staff who died from covid, including Jane Rowbotham, a care home manager in my constituency. Despite all that, care staff remain chronically underpaid and undervalued, with poor recruitment and retention rates. There is, rightly, outrage at the idea that NHS staff will get a real-terms pay cut this year, but most care staff will not get any rise either. The reality is that most of them will be asked to accept a pay freeze, at best, despite rising workloads and all the additional responsibilities.

There are 112,000 care job vacancies, and the turnover rate is 30%: those workforce issues cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. Without extra funding, care providers are not in a place to provide extra support to their staff. Since the start of the pandemic they have taken on extra costs, from extra PPE to deep cleaning, while there has been a drastic decline in the number of care home residents. They were struggling to make ends meet before, and the additional funding provided by the Government simply has not been sufficient to meet their needs.

The Local Government Association estimates that adult social care services have faced additional costs of £6.6 billion in tackling the pandemic, with PPE alone costing more than £4 billion. The National Audit Office has reported that many local authorities will have to rely on reserves to balance their budgets this year, and there is little confidence about the setting of budgets beyond that, to meet needs that have increased during the pandemic.

It is clear that since the emergence of the virus last year, the social care sector has often been overlooked by the Government. Ministers claim to have put a protective ring around care homes at the same time as hospitals were actively discharging covid patients into care homes, without testing them. Care homes, in turn, were not resourced for the measures that they needed to control an outbreak. Residents have gone without contact with their friends and families because of limits on visits, which still involve a longer quarantine period for a care home resident who spends an hour sitting outside with a family member than there is for an international traveller coming back from a red-list country. Staff who have done so much to keep the care system going are rewarded only with the offer of a CARE badge. There is no pay rise or bonus as offered to care staff by the Welsh Labour Government.

All that is not good enough. When the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that we shall get more than warm words for social care. We need solid commitments. The pandemic has to be a turning point in the way we treat care staff. In the past year we have all seen that the work done by care staff—whether in a care home, providing domiciliary care, or in supported living—is every bit as important as the work done by NHS staff. It is time for social care staff to have parity of esteem with NHS staff, and for a workforce strategy for social care that has better pay, conditions and training for the staff who have given so much. It is way past time for the Government to take action to fix social care funding as they have promised to do repeatedly in the past 10 years.

15:37

[Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. As others have said, this is my first speech in the Boothroyd Room, although I reflect, as I look at the wall and see those steely but friendly eyes staring at me, that I have been around long enough to remember that happening live in my first Parliament, with Madam Speaker, as she then was, in the Chair. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), my co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on adult social care, for obtaining the debate. I should declare that I am chairing an investigation of social care by Public Policy Projects.

There are two halves to the debate. Obviously there is the covid-19 aspect, but there is also the question of the future of social care more generally, and they clearly come together in important ways. But I shall start with the specific covid-19 aspects. I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood said. In particular, urgent action is required to facilitate voting by people in residential care homes, on 6 May. That obviously needs to be done in the next few days, and I hope that the Minister can take that message away from the debate.

We have seen the most terrible year ever in care homes —the figures have been put out already, so there is no point in my repeating them. It has been terrible not just for covid victims but for other residents and relatives who have seen the terrible toll of what has happened inside care homes. Happily, we have now moved on from the worst days of this time last year, and the current covid-related issues in care homes tend to relate to access for visitors and the opportunities for residents to make visits outside. Both are hugely important issues for the wider mental health of those living in care homes.

I have a lot of sympathy for my hon. Friend the Minister, for other Ministers and, indeed, for care home managers. The paramount concern must be safety at all times and I can see that there is an extremely difficult balancing act. The solution surely lies in vaccination—not just of residents, but of staff. Through discussions at the APPG working group that we have heard so much about already, I am aware that there is a great disparity of view about how best to encourage vaccination take-up among care home staff.

People argue strongly that threatening to make vaccination compulsory might not be the most constructive approach, and the Government are consulting on that. I await the results of the consultation but, whatever the best system, it is imperative that the percentage of those who work in care homes and who have daily contact with the most vulnerable people in the country should be higher than the national average and not lower, as it is in too many places. That is an urgent aspect of the current situation.

I have fallen into talking about care homes, but domiciliary care is equally important. People move from house to house where there are vulnerable people so the same thoughts apply to that sphere. Those who look after a loved one—“unpaid carers” in the sector jargon—are equally important, and they should be vaccinated as well. I urge my hon. Friend to move fast and get our care workers vaccinated as quickly as possible for the sake of those who need care as well for the comfort of loved ones who will then be able to visit. That will also help to create a sense of normality for those who will then be able to leave the care home that they may have felt trapped in over the past year. That is clearly an important mental health issue.

The crisis over the past 12 months has shone a fierce light on residential social care and has drawn public attention to it in a way that has never happened before. It could scarcely have happened in more tragic circumstances, and the only sliver of consolation from the awful death toll has been the developing consensus that we simply cannot go on putting sticking plasters on to an increasingly fragile system.

It is getting on for a quarter of a century since the first in a list of Prime Ministers said that social care was an urgent issue that needed addressing. I have done some research and I think Tony Blair said that at a Labour party conference in 1997. All his successors have agreed with him, but the problem is that none of them has yet met words with action. That is not for the want of trying.

Under Gordon Brown, Labour produced proposals for a national care service that foundered when it was dubbed a “death tax”. David Cameron put through the Care Act 2014 and a version of the Dilnot proposals. Shaky Government finances meant that was never implemented. In 2017, a new version was proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). It was dubbed a “dementia tax” with not great political results. Here we are in 2021 without a solution on the table and the problem is still with us. Later this year, we are promised a sustainable solution in the comprehensive spending review. Let us hope that we see it.

There are many problems to be solved, and some have been mentioned by previous speakers. At the root of them all is funding. The Health and Social Care Select Committee estimates that £7 billion extra is needed to put the system on a sustainable footing. The most intractable problem, as it has been over the past quarter of a century, is how it is raised. If it is all raised from taxation or national insurance, working-age people will, by and large, end up paying for their own care, perhaps later in life, and that of their parents’ generation. That will rightly seem unfair to them.

More promising models offer a mixture of extra public spending and more contributions from individuals—through an insurance system, through a Dilnot-style system or through variations of those models. I argued in a paper for the Centre for Policy Studies that we should look to the pension system for an example of universal state provision being successfully supplemented with private savings. As we have seen with pensions, we have established cross-party consensus under Governments of different parties.

Even when the Government come to a conclusion on how to find the extra money needed—let us hope that it is not from council tax, which is not suitable for funding care—there will be other intractable problems, including workforce planning. The demographics will dictate that we need more workers, so we must make it a more attractive sector to work in. Pay levels have already been mentioned, but the development of a proper career structure for care workers—it can be seen in the NHS, but it is much less easy to see in the care sector—is hugely important.

So much technology of all kinds is available that would improve the daily lives of those receiving care, but I fear that there is no discernible strategy for introducing and experimenting with it.

Housing is a key issue. If we built differently we could keep far more people in their own homes longer, which would make them happier in themselves, most importantly, and be less expensive for the system. I agree very much with Anchor, one of the providers, which says that there should be changes in the planning system that include older people’s housing in local plans and the creation of a new planning classification for retirement communities. That and other ideas are very worth considering.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there is the whole issue of what integration we want of the care system and the NHS. I am delighted that the Government produced their recent paper on integrated care systems. It will not be easy to make a reality of that, but it will be absolutely vital.

I make a plea for two things, the first of which is that the voice of the care sector is heard not just in debates on ICSs but inside ICSs when they are introduced. At present it is not clear from the White Paper that that would happen. As a subset of that, simply having local authorities, vital though they are, around those ICS tables is not enough. There are many independent, third sector and profit-making providers whose voices need to be heard.

Secondly, I completely welcome the long-term plan for the NHS—the 10-year plan—but equally it is important to have a 10-year plan for social care that fits with it so that it is seen as a system on its own. It clearly has to mesh very closely with the NHS: it has as many and as complex needs as the NHS and ought to be treated as just as importantly.

I am aware that that is a formidable set of challenges, but 25 years is too long for reaching a decision about how to tackle them. I hope and profoundly expect that this is the year when we will finally see determined and sustainable action on this front.

15:49

[David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con) [V]]

It is a delight to be able to participate in this important and timely debate, and to do so under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) and the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for securing the debate. As a vice-chair of the all-party group on adult social care, I must pay tribute to both Members for their commitment in this area and their leadership of the APPG.

Care workers have made an extraordinary contribution, particularly through the hugely difficult circumstances of the past year, doing all they can to help people to live comfortably, safely and with dignity up and down the country. Here in Somerset, at the onset of the pandemic, I had the privilege of working with Gracewell of Frome care home, and I have to say that the dedication and professionalism of Jemma Griffiths and her staff have been tremendous.

Care workers such as those at Gracewell and in similar settings across the country could reasonably be called the unsung heroes of this crisis. They have worked throughout to keep the most vulnerable among us shielded from the virus, and to provide their residents with comfort when their families and friends have been unable to visit them. I hope that today’s debate is also the beginning of our showing appreciation for the vast number of people who work across social care settings: the caterers, the cleaners, the drivers, the porters, the assistants who have supported people in their own homes, and of course the unpaid carers, supporting their own loved ones.

However, sadly, the pandemic has shone a spotlight on the fragility of our social care system, which is all too harshly demonstrated by the shocking loss of life in our care homes that we have been hearing about since last March. Although covid has perhaps made social care reform unavoidable, it is clear that many of the issues it has exposed have existed for years, if not decades. We see this through staffing shortages, with Skills for Care research highlighting over 100,000 vacancies across the social care sector at any one time, and we see it through the impacts on the NHS, with lack of capacity in the social care sector causing too many people to remain in hospital unnecessarily. Surely, this is the opportunity to learn the difficult lessons from this period and create a sustainable future for social care.

Let us be clear: that sustainable future for social care is dependent on sustainable funding. The LGA estimates that adult social care services face additional costs of over £6.6 billion in tackling the pandemic. Increased staff, personal protective equipment, cleaning and overheads have been the areas of most pressure, and while the social care grant has been extremely valuable, I am concerned that it is not enough to address the situation, or indeed the future. I am sure that the Minister will comment further, but Mencap’s figures suggest that at least an additional £3.2 billion of funding is needed to stabilise the social care sector before a longer-term settlement can be achieved.

Over the past year, as we have been hearing, we have all been concerned about the situation around visitation and the confusing policy advice there. Obviously, since 12 April, there have been welcome changes to the guidance, but safe access for social care workers to visit people in care and health settings continues to be difficult, even with the successful rolling out of testing and the vaccine.

Should—perish the thought—new restrictions be required in the future, I very much hope that social care settings will get quick and clear guidance from the very start; as with so many sectors affected by the pandemic, this is really about certainty. One thing I hear again and again from people in the social care sector is the perceived lack of appreciation for what they do. We have all rightly praised the NHS throughout the pandemic, but parity of esteem for the social care sector is vital. If we are to see social care improve and provide better outcomes and better health, it must not be the forgotten frontline.

As such, I very much support a comprehensive social care workforce strategy, much as we have a people’s plan for the NHS, to drive forward skills training, professionalism and better pay and conditions for our social care workers. Such a strategy should be anchored in the vision of improving the quality of life for the people who access care and support. With the introduction of integrated care systems in England, this is more important than ever. Truly integrated care means that we need a truly integrated approach.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on such a scheme and a funding boost for social care, along with, of course, a long-term and sustainable funding solution that is equitable and fair for all.

15:55

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.

I commend the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) for securing this debate, and I particularly commend my right hon. Friend for his work to develop long-term policy solutions for many of the challenges that we see, which are not new but which have been brought into sharp focus by the experience of covid and its impact across the social care sector. We have all seen large numbers of constituents, for example, who have been enormously distressed by the restrictions on care home visits, which has had a hugely significant impact, and it is welcome that we are able to see a lifting of restrictions, so that families can get together at long last.

However, when we look across the whole of the UK, we recognise that even in places where there is a relatively high level of demand being placed on the care sector, less than one in five of the population will make use of it during their lifetimes, including children’s social care, adult social care and social care for older people. It is a sector that is often not well understood. In fact, because most people do not engage with it during their lifetime, unlike the NHS, the police and other emergency services, people often do not appreciate how it works or indeed recognise that for most top-tier local authorities—those with social care responsibilities—social care will consume around 70% of their budget. It is far and away the biggest area of local authority expenditure in England.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the work of Sir Paul Carter, formerly the chairman of the County Councils Network and the leader of Kent County Council, who has been looking internationally at models of care, particularly for older people, and ways of funding care that represent a move towards sustainable and long-term funding. This is a topic that I will come back to my closing remarks, but when 70% of the typical local authority budget is being spent on care, there is clearly a serious risk that unless we find a long-term solution, it will consume the rest of the budget.

Many of those other services, such as libraries, parks and leisure services, which support the wellbeing of the wider community and in many cases represent the infrastructure that our communities need, will genuinely be in financial peril unless we find a long-term financial solution. Indeed, the only area of local authority expenditure to have increased in the last decade is expenditure on children’s social care, which has been achieved largely at the expense of other areas of local authority expenditure, rather than through tax rises.

A number of ideas have been put forward. I know that many in the local government sector—I speak as a vice-president of the Local Government Association—have welcomed the opportunity to raise a council tax precept specifically for social care. However, even when I consider my own two local authorities, which are London boroughs, there is enormous variation within the same type of council and within the same type of city in what that precept can contribute to boosting social care budgets. It ranges from the maximum precept being implemented —in the City of London, an additional 0.02% on the budget—to the other end of the scale, in the London Borough of Richmond, where much more expenditure is raised directly through council tax and where there is an additional 1.8% net. When we take into account the variations across the country, it is clear that precepts are not a long-term solution to social care funding. We need to find a different way of looking at this issue.

The second issue, which seems to me absolutely critical, is that we need to consider the success or otherwise of the joint working arrangements put in place under schemes such as the better care fund, whereby the NHS and local authorities come together to manage local services. When we look at those ventures, it is very clear that it is the local authority-led elements of them that have consistently delivered against the targets that they have been set and the outcomes that we are all seeking to achieve. The NHS has found it considerably more challenging.

That demonstrates that we need to look at a local authority-led model for social care, because it is already clear and established that it is more efficient, more focused on delivery for our residents, and more likely to achieve the outcomes that we want to see. Because the vast majority of social care for children and adults of working age is well outside both the remit and the capacity of the NHS—indeed, it is not something that would normally be a priority for the NHS—it is clear that that bigger picture needs to remain firmly in view as we look at a long-term solution. A key element of likely success in social care reform will be in ensuring that it is managed and controlled by local authorities, who are in the best position to deliver against that.

Moving to conclusions, it is clear that in order to be effective and to address the issue around the discharge of patients from hospital, which causes such concern, a new model of care needs to have a very direct form of input, particularly from acute NHS services when it comes to the discharge of patients from hospital and rehabilitation services, which are a big part of this. We also need to ensure that general practitioners are able to work closely with the system so that the needs that they see emerging among patients in their surgeries can be taken into account. What we need most is a stable and consistent funding model, and there have been different attempts at developing that.

In his recent work, Sir Paul Carter looked at how the German operation is funded and structured through a form of social insurance. To an extent, what matters is not that we try to find a perfect solution. We need a solution that providers of social care and local authorities can rely on to ensure stability in the system and to avoid either the large-scale collapse of parts of the social care system, as we have seen with some providers, or a continued shortfall between what people need and expect, and what local authorities and their partners in the NHS can provide.

It seems clear from everyone who has spoken today—I am sure the Minister has grasped this message—that stability and consistency of funding are critical to provide a long-term solution for social care in England and the wider United Kingdom.

16:02

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]]

It is a pleasure to take part in today’s debate, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for securing it. May I start by paying tribute to all the care staff who have worked so hard during the covid crisis, tackling issues on the frontline and coping with the loss of residents to the virus? I extend my deepest sympathy to all who have lost loved ones.

Members will be aware that social care is a devolved matter, and in Scotland we do things a little differently, which means I often feel like a foreign observer during such debates. However, there is no doubt that we have faced many of the same challenges over the past year. The challenges of covid have been quite unprecedented in the sector. I have commented in a few debates that there are often lessons that we can learn from each nation and good practices that can be shared. I hope that on this issue that proves to be the case.

There are lessons that we must learn for the future from our covid experiences. We know from the Office for National Statistics data for England and Wales and the National Records of Scotland data that our nations pretty much experienced the same rates of care home deaths per head of population. Such deaths account for approximately a third of all covid-19 deaths, and that represents a national tragedy. Undoubtedly, hindsight tells us that there are things we would have done differently if we had known then what we know now, but real-time decisions are made without that luxury. Instead, we have to be content that the decisions taken were thought to be the best at the time, and we must learn from the experience. I welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to hold a public inquiry into the handling of the pandemic by the end of this year.

On a positive note, Scotland has achieved almost complete vaccine uptake among care home staff without making the vaccine compulsory, which I think we can all welcome. It can be done. Like the NHS, social care has faced huge pressures during the covid pandemic. In Scotland, the SNP Scottish Government have taken action during the covid outbreak to support the social care sector and its workforce. Going forward, we are committed to creating a national care service, increasing social care investment and scrapping non-residential care charges to ensure a rights-based approach to care.

Throughout the pandemic, the Scottish Government continued to prioritise the health, safety and wellbeing of their health and social care workers. That included working with partners to ensure a range of wellbeing and psychological support, with measures such as the national wellbeing hub, a national 24-hour phone line for NHS and social care staff, and committing £5 million to establish a health and social care mental health network to enhance existing support and provide more funding for local support.

Social care providers in Scotland can currently claim back PPE costs over and above their usual amounts due to the pandemic, and can access local PPE hubs for emergency PPE supply if their existing supply routes fail. That support is available to social care providers across the sector, including unpaid carers and personal assistants. Those arrangements, introduced in March 2020, were due to expire in March this year but have been extended until June.

The most significant changes going forward, though, will come from the findings of the independent Feeley review of adult social care in Scotland, which contains 53 recommendations for the future of social care provision. The SNP is committed to implementing the recommendations of the Feeley review, including scrapping non-residential social care charges. The report, which was published on 3 February this year, provides a foundation to enhance adult social care provision across Scotland.

This independent review has found many aspects of Scotland’s adult social care system that are worthy of celebration, such as the introduction of self-directed support, the Carers (Scotland) Act 2016, and our commitment in legislation to integrate health and social care. Scotland is proud to be the only country in the UK with free personal care, which was extended in April 2019 to all those under 65 who need it.

I believe that social care services, just like healthcare services, should be provided on a truly universal basis, free at the point of use. An SNP Government will abolish all non-residential social care charges for those who need support. Health and care integration has been progressing in Scotland since 2014, and the SNP Scottish Government’s commitment to develop a national care service will ensure equity across the country.

On 16 February, the Scottish Parliament voted in favour of a motion that commits to establishing a national care service in law, on an equal footing with NHS Scotland, to provide national accountability, reduce variability, and facilitate improved outcomes for social care users across the nation. The creation of a national care service will also involve reviewing the number, structure and regulation of health boards and other related delivery services to remove unwarranted duplication of functions and make the best use of the public purse.

Social care staff in Scotland are already paid better than those in England and Wales, and the SNP has pledged to introduce a new fair national wage for care staff and national pay bargaining for the sector. For their extraordinary service in the battle against covid, social care workers were included by the Scottish Government in the £500 bonus thank-you payment.

The £500 thank-you payment is for Scotland’s NHS and social care workers employed between 17 March last year and 30 November, including staff who have had to shield or who have since retired. It includes final year nursing students who worked on temporary contracts during the pandemic—like all staff, it will be paid pro rata—as well as community pharmacists in Scotland, NHS bank and NHS locum staff, who work on NHS contracts at NHS rates of pay, and staff employed on a seasonal basis for GPs, dentists, pharmacists and optometrists.

That investment of around £190 million will see nearly 400,000 staff gain some benefit from the payment. The SNP has repeatedly called for the UK Government to allow the payment to be exempt from income tax. Sadly, the ability to exempt the bonus in that way is not within the current powers of the Scottish Government; it is a power that we shall soon have with independence. The UK Government should follow Scotland’s lead and make a commitment to a national care service for England.

16:09

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, and very nice to see so many people present in person. One of the things that we have all missed during this pandemic is human interaction, possibly even in Parliament.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing this debate and on her brilliant speech, every word of which I agree with. I thank her and the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) for their work on the APPG. Every week, I have read the readout of their discussion, even if I have not been able to attend, and that real-time information has been hugely important. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), who was the shadow Minister for Social Care before me and from whom I have learnt a great deal over many years.

I will say something about the impact of the pandemic on the users of services, staff, families and the wider community, who have not been touched on so far. I will also talk about the underlying reasons why we have failed to prioritise and secure longer-term reforms to social care. We cannot deal with a problem unless we understand why it is there; that is how we get progress.

As other hon. Members have said, the emerging tragedy in social care over the course of this pandemic will be etched on all our brains for the rest of our lives. To see 41,500 care home residents dying from covid-19, including those residents who ended up dying in hospital, has been brutal for every single one of those people, their families and all the staff who have gone through unimaginable horror caring for people at this difficult time.

The sad reality is that the proportion of care home residents who have died in England is higher than in almost any other country that we have data for, especially in Europe, where it is surpassed only by the proportion who died in care homes in Slovenia, Belgium and, unfortunately, Scotland—despite what the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) said. Scotland has had one of the highest rates of care home resident deaths. That is a serious problem. I will come on to why, whatever Ministers said, I think that a protective ring of steel was not put around care homes. That is related to the deep-seated problems and our fundamental challenges. We must ensure that it never happens again.

People living with dementia have been particularly badly hit by the pandemic. A third of all covid-19 deaths have been of people living with dementia. Also, the deaths of people with dementia even where covid-19 has not been present have been significantly higher. I will say something about this later, but I think the fact that so many people in care homes have been prevented from seeing their loved ones means that those with dementia have gone downhill fast. When people lose their memory, which is what dementia is, their family is their memory. No matter how hard care home staff try, family are the ones who know what films people liked or what music they liked to play, and without their absolute involvement and interaction, we have seen many care home residents with dementia go downhill fast.

I also want to touch on a point made continually by my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South: the impact of covid-19 on people with learning disabilities. They are six times more likely to die than the general population and, horrifically, for those aged 18 to 34, they are 30 times more likely to die. To be honest, however, that should come as no surprise to us, because we know that people with learning disabilities have far worse health outcomes and are more likely to die early because of their lack of proper access to care.

Everybody has rightly paid tribute to the amazing work of care staff, who have given more than almost anybody during this pandemic. Tragically, they were twice as likely as the general population to die from covid-19 during the first wave. That presents two really big issues.

There was an appalling lack of access to PPE, especially in the first wave. I met frontline care workers who told terrible stories of having only one mask to last the whole day, from client to client, when seeing clients with dementia, who cannot help but spit on to the mask when they are talking, so the care worker thinks, “I haven’t got another mask to see my next client.” A survey by GMB found that 85% of frontline care workers said that they were worried about the risks to their own health and that of their families, and that one in five thought about quitting cause of the lack of PPE.

That has been compounded by the low pay and poor terms and conditions of frontline care workers. We have heard time and again that many workers who needed to self-isolate or shield were forced to take unpaid leave or rely on statutory sick pay, leaving them desperately out of pocket, unable to pay their bills and facing an awful choice between going to work or being unable to put food on the table. A Unison survey found that those are absolutely essential issues that must be addressed. One care worker said:

“I was Covid-positive after contracting it at work and was off for three weeks. I have a mortgage to pay and bills, and I don’t know how I’m expected to survive. I put my life on the line, survived and was repaid with SSP.”

Three quarters of frontline care workers do not make the real living wage. Many do not even make the minimum wage at the end of the week because they are not paid for travel time between clients. We cannot deliver a better system of social care without transforming the pay, terms, training and conditions of the care workforce.

On families, there are two issues. One is unpaid family carers, who have done so much more to care for their elderly or disabled loved ones during this pandemic. There were 9 million of them in the UK, but since the pandemic struck, there have been an extra 4.5 million—it is astonishing that we have not heard more about that during the debate. They are providing even more care than usual, without breaks, and their own physical and mental health has suffered as a result. Families are as important as the paid workforce in delivering care in this country. We need a new deal—a partnership between families and the Government—to support those carers in doing their best to look after their loved ones.

We then have the families who have been banned from seeing their loved ones in care homes, and who are now also unable even to take their loved ones out for a walk or a cup of tea, because they would have to self-isolate for 14 days. We have to completely rethink that. Since June, we have been arguing that families should be treated as key workers and have access to all the testing, PPE, vaccinations and so on, so that they can safely visit their loved ones. That is not just a term or a gimmick, however; they actually are key workers. We cannot have good-quality care for older or disabled people without families’ involvement.

I urge the Minister, as I have done many times when discussing this topic, to have a rethink about this. The guidance still is not working—it is wrong on the 14-day self-isolation—and we may have to look at legislation to enshrine the rights of care home residents. They are not prisoners. Quite frankly, if we all think that, when we end up in a care home, we will be banned from seeing our family and will not be allowed out, what kind of future is that? It will be a future that we fear, rather than a future for which we look forward to getting older, and that must change.

On the wider community, one of the positive things from the pandemic—I am very proud of what has happened in Leicester, the city that I represent—is how many voluntary groups and mutual aid groups have sprung up to try to do things such as helping older people with shopping, delivering it quicker than either the local authority or the private sector ever could. That support for the wider community—ringing older people to help them if they are isolated—has got to be part of our future social care system, too.

Let me move on to why we have seen the problems that we are all relating here. The immediate and glaring issue, as the Alzheimer’s Society has said, of why we have seen such problems in the care sector, is that the pandemic struck at a time when social care was already overstretched and undervalued. Local authority care budgets have been cut by £8 billion in real terms since 2010 and that has pushed many to absolute breaking point. It is not morally right, but it does not make economic sense either, because if staff are not paid properly and there is high turnover and vacancy rates and family carers are not supported and their health suffers and they end up in hospital, that costs us all far more.

It is also the failure to put in place long-term reforms, as the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) said. Why is that the case? It is a big challenge, but it is not rocket science, to ask for older and disabled people to live as normal a life and as full and fulfilling a life as possible, with help to get up, washed, dressed and fed, maybe go to the shops, with help for a disabled person to live independently and maybe have a job. It is not that complicated, yet we have ended up in this crisis. Why?

First, when the NHS and the wider welfare state was created, average life expectancy was 63. Now, it is 80. We did not live in a world where people lived for so many years, and so we have been scrabbling to catch up ever since, with a fragmented and piecemeal system. Secondly, in many ways we have left it to families—“This is a family issue; families should look after elderly or disabled relatives.” Yes, and they want to. They want to do all they can, but they need help and support, especially in a world where women work; they want to work and balance their family lives. Thirdly, it is about caring and caring is women’s work—undervalued, underpaid and yet some of the most important work in our society.

What that all adds up to is a failure to understand that a third of our lives will now be lived aged over 65. We have got to transform society—not just the care sector, but housing, transport and planning—because getting older should be something that we look forward to with hope and optimism, not fear. It is my lovely mum’s birthday today. She is so worried about the pandemic, but I am afraid, when I was discussing this debate, she said, “You know what, Liz? You know what we feel? At best, ignorable; at worst, expendable.” That is not a country that any of us want to live in.

The legacy of this pandemic must be to transform services and support so that every older and disabled person can live the life they choose. It is politically controversial and my strong advice to the Government would be to bring forward proposals early on, because the closer we get to an election, the worse it will be. The Labour party was accused of a death tax; the Conservatives have been accused of a dementia tax. In the end, it is not us who suffer. It is the people who use services and their families.

We need a long-term settlement for older and disabled people that pools our resources and shares our risks and has a fair balance of funding across the generations. That is surely within our grasp. I know Opposition Members will continue to do everything they can to secure a better future for all.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

I remind the Minister to leave a few minutes at the end for Helen Hayes to wind up.

16:23

[The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)]

I will do so. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I wish the shadow Minister’s mother a happy birthday today.

I thank the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) for securing this debate on social care and covid and for the work they do as co-chairs of the APPG on adult social care, bringing the sector together and being a voice for it in Parliament and beyond.

As the hon. Lady and my right hon. Friend said—as, in fact, all speakers today have said, and as we all know —the pandemic has been cruel to those who receive social care, especially those living in care homes around the world, here in the UK, and indeed in England. Sadly, both residents and care staff have lost their lives, and each one will be missed by friends, family, and those who love them. I thank those working in social care—staff in care homes, home care workers, those supporting people in extra care and supported living, personal assistants, social workers, and millions of unpaid carers as well—for all they have done during the pandemic, and are continuing to do now, to care for those who rely on their care and could not live without it.

Members have spoken about the many challenges the sector has faced during the pandemic. I want to outline some of the things that the Government have done to support social care, with a level of intervention—a level of support—that is unprecedented for social care, and rightly so in the circumstances of the pandemic. First, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood spoke about the extra costs that social care has faced during the pandemic. We have put in £1.8 billion of specific, ring-fenced covid funding for social care during the pandemic, including £1.3 billion for infection control measures, and providers have told me what a huge difference this support has made to them and how essential it has been all the way through the pandemic.

Secondly, the Government have stepped in to provide PPE to the social care sector, and PPE has been available free for many months via a portal to meet the covid needs of social care providers on demand. Over 2 billion items of PPE have been supplied to the social care sector, and the Government have committed to continue PPE supply through to March 2022.

Thirdly, social care has been prioritised as our testing volumes have increased. Last summer, we introduced weekly polymerase chain reaction testing for care home staff, and since December, that has been supplemented by twice-weekly lateral flow device tests. That has made a difference, because we can not only quickly identify when a staff member may be covid positive but, through the introduction of the LFD tests, we are able to identify whether a member of staff is covid positive before they set foot in the care home. During this time, we have sent out over 28 million PCR tests and 47 million LFD tests to the social care sector across care homes, home care, supported living, and other parts of the sector. We have also made rapid tests available to visitors, supported by £288 million of funding for the staff costs involved in that testing, to help people see loved ones. I will say more about visiting in a moment.

Fourthly, many hon. Members have spoken about the impact of the pandemic on the social care workforce. Again, we cannot thank care workers enough for what they have done, and how they have gone the extra mile time and again. Through the virtual visits I have made to care homes and the conversations I have had, I have seen what staff have done, particularly to step in and support residents at a time when visiting has been restricted.

I also know the difficult experiences that some care workers have been through. We have specifically advised care providers to use some of the funding for paid sick leave for social care staff who have had to isolate due to covid. We have also put in place mental health support for the social care workforce, seeking as far as we can to mirror the mental health support offer to NHS staff, and we will continue to see how we can support staff through the mental health impacts of the pandemic.

As hon. Members have said, we know that there are workforce shortages within social care, and at times covid has made that harder, with staff rightly taking time to isolate. Recognising that, we provided £120 million of funding for the workforce capacity fund, which was passed to local authorities to boost staffing for the sector during the second wave.

To increase the voice of the social care sector and to give further leadership—particularly clinical leadership—to the social care workforce, we appointed the fantastic Deborah Sturdy as the chief nurse for social care. She is already doing brilliant work with the sector and the workforce, and contributing to plans for the workforce of the future.

To increase our understanding of the social care situation on the ground, we created a social care data dashboard as a single point of information for the system. We came into the pandemic with relatively small amounts of timely data about social care; as hon. Members know, it is a highly fragmented system, with over 25,000 different providers. We have built a way of having up-to-date information and self-reported data from providers, which has given us truly valuable information to which local authorities also have access. It gives a good sense of what has been happening on the ground.

We have also established a regional assurance team for social care, as this is now the Department of Health and Social Care. They are a group of people with great experience in the sector who have been able to reach out during the pandemic, working with local authorities, directors of public health, providers and others, to understand some of the challenges being faced and provide more localised support.

On visiting, on many occasions we have developed an iterated visiting guidance, responding to requests from the sector for a steer on how to manage the challenge of wanting people in care homes to be visited while acknowledging the risks to residents of more people coming through the door. We have drawn a huge amount of clinical guidance from the deputy chief medical officer of Public Health England on how we can enable safe visiting. Clearly, we have substantial caution because we know the great risks to care home residents when covid gets in and how difficult it is to stop an outbreak from spreading through a care home, even with the PPE, the testing and the other things I have outlined. One reason why we introduced visitor testing was to reduce that risk.

Since 12 April, care homes have been able to open up to two visitors, and the essential care giver scheme addresses particular need. I look forward to care homes being able to continue to open up, step by step, through the combination of lower infection rates and vaccination, to enable people to once again spend much more time with their loved ones.

Several hon. Members spoke about visits out. I recognise the importance of both having visitors at care homes and being able to leave—to go out and about. This applies to older people, but particularly to families who have relatives of working age in residential settings, who I have spoken to. Often, somebody of working age might come out every weekend to spend time with their mum and dad, and their family. Clearly, they have not been able to do that during the pandemic.

I ask other hon. Members with an interest in this subject to listen to the Joint Committee on Human Rights sitting held yesterday, when I was asked about this. With me was Dr Éamonn O’Moore from Public Health England, who explained in some detail, which we do not have time for today, the reason for the caution around visiting out and the clinical reasons for the requirement to isolate for 14 days on return. To respond to the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South, I should say that that is not the same as somebody coming from overseas to the UK and quarantining, because of the particular circumstances within care homes. There may be people who are very vulnerable. In the event that someone brings covid into the care home, that can lead to an outbreak, which can lead, sadly, to people dying. Therefore, rightly, the issue is taken seriously.

I assure colleagues that, as Dr O’Moore said to the Health and Social Care Committee yesterday, I have asked Public Health England to provide advice on how to make more visits possible—particularly those with lower risk, such as those outdoors—and on what could be done to reduce quarantine requirements afterwards. I am mindful of the May elections and of those who might want to vote in person.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford rightly said that vaccines are the answer to allowing more visiting and for much of life to come back to normal, for those who receive social care. We prioritised the social care sector for vaccinations—and particularly care homes, who were top of the list. The vaccine was offered to all care homes by the end of January, on time. Soon, all residents who can be vaccinated will have been offered their second dose.

The impact of vaccination is already being seen, with the rates of covid coming right down in care homes. There are still some outbreaks and I would caution those listening to the debate that the vaccine is not 100% effective. Many residents have had their second dose but others are still only on their first, and it is important in that situation that the precautions continue. For instance, we are continuing to urge care homes to make sure that staff use PPE and infection control measures, even when everyone has been vaccinated. However, there are far fewer outbreaks and the consequences are much less serious. I want to use this opportunity to thank the NHS vaccination teams, and the social care workforce, who have been involved in the tremendous and lifesaving effort to vaccinate so many thousands of people in social care.

Many hon. Members spoke about the importance of reform, and how the pandemic has shone a light on the social care sector and the need for reform. I truly welcome the support for reform among hon. Members who have taken part in the debate in this room and virtually. Some steps have begun, and I urge the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood to look again at some of the social care content in the health and social care White Paper, including the voice of social care in integrated care systems—and I agree with the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford that it is not just about a local authority voice, but the wider sector.

The White Paper also proposes the introduction of a new oversight and assurance system for social care, which I see as an important part of building on the experiences of the pandemic, to give us more oversight and the ability to drive quality and outcomes more strongly for those who receive social care. It also includes steps to support better use of data and data sharing for social care.

Those things are, however, just the beginning and we need to go further. We have committed to go further and to publishing a long-term plan for social care this year.

[Barbara Keeley]

As the Minister is talking about the White Paper, I wanted to point out that we have talked quite a lot about unpaid carers in the debate, but they are not mentioned once in the White Paper. Carers’ organisations took that in a bad way and felt that all the efforts that unpaid carers put in during the pandemic were not recognised at all. The Minister and the Health Secretary need to address that.

[Helen Whately]

The hon. Member makes a really important point, and I really appreciate how she has spoken about unpaid carers during this debate. I absolutely recognise the crucial role of unpaid carers, the things that unpaid carers do and the demands on and challenges for unpaid carers during the pandemic. I absolutely see unpaid carers as part of the breadth of the social care system that we must consider for the reforms as we go forward.

I very much welcomed the expertise, in the room and virtually, on social care reform. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford reminded us that the reform debate has been going on for nearly 25 years. He has extremely valuable experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) has great experience from local government and flagged the work of Sir Paul Carter, whom I know because he is the former leader of Kent County Council and I am a Kent MP. I will indeed be looking at the work that my hon. Friend mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) called for a social care workforce strategy. Yes, absolutely, as part of the reform work, we need and plan to bring forward a strategy for the social care workforce.

I am conscious of the time and so that is probably as far as I can go today, but broadly, I truly welcome the support for social care reform expressed during this debate. I assure those in the room and all those listening to the debate that we are determined to seize this moment. We have supported social care at an unprecedented level during the pandemic; on the back of that, we are determined to bring forward the reform that we know social care needs.

16:41

[Helen Hayes]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate today. It has been a reflective debate and one full of immense experience and knowledge of the social care sector, and that is very welcome.

In the couple of minutes that I have, I will push back slightly on some of the Minister’s comments. It was disappointing that she mentioned additional funding, PPE and testing and talked only about the things that the Government did later on in the pandemic—the very deep trauma experienced by the social care sector with regard to a shortage of PPE and lack of access to testing was in the early months. I feel that, by failing to mention it, she does a disservice to those workers and residents in the social care sector who really suffered the impact of the Government’s failure to plan ahead of time for a pandemic and their failure to deliver and get swiftly off the blocks when the pandemic hit.

The point that I would like to make about the health and social care White Paper is that it talks about integration, but without talking about social care reform, and that cannot happen. We have an NHS, which is a well organised national system, founded on a statutory basis; and we have social care, which is not a system but a fragmented and diverse set of organisations and individual families all struggling and all brought to breaking point by the lack of funding, the lack of organisation and the lack of overall structure and accountability.

If there is to be integration, it has to be integration on the basis of parity of esteem, and that involves the Government getting to grips with the question of reform. I urge the Minister just to take seriously the voice of the APPG and the sector, to continue to engage and, most importantly, to start a structured process for cross-party talks, so that together we can deliver the change that the social care sector so desperately needs.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered social care and the covid-19 outbreak.

16:43

Sitting adjourned.

Grand Committee

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Grand Committee

Thursday 22 April 2021

The Grand Committee met in a hybrid proceeding.

Arrangement of Business

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Grand Committee

Announcement

14:30

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee.

Body Mass Index

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

14:30

Asked by

[Lord Addington]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of Body Mass Index as a medical guideline.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, this is a subject of which I have spoken in the past, but what inspired this debate in my name was the report and subsequent publicity from the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee, chaired by Caroline Nokes MP. The report points out that on an arbitrary line with an ideal point in the middle, when it applies to people, most are not at that middle point. When that is used to identify health, you are effectively saying that a lot of people are not healthy. That idea is suggested as a good guide to what one should be—I have spoken about it in the past. However, not everyone is in the middle. The guide says that one should be X height and X weight.

The report spoke about the damaging effect of body image, predominantly among the female population, particularly the young. It is yet another thing that says, “This is what you should weigh, look like and be.” But it should not be just like that. It is worth remembering that in the current environment this applies also to males. It is increasingly applied to all young people and, indeed, the whole population. There is an accepted norm. The internet has exacerbated a situation that has always been there.

Most of us in this debate will have spoken about retouching photographs and making sure that they are idealised versions of people. That is now taken to a new level. Some of the work that we have been doing was referred to in a debate on a Private Member’s Bill last week regarding restricting plastic surgery. These issues are adding to the problems, but if this approach is taken as a medical guideline, you are getting the wrong information on which medical procedure might be taken. Given the information that is put out, along with the press coverage, we should be worried.

I wish that I could have given some of my time to other noble Lords taking part in this debate. With conditions such as anorexia, someone can be told, “You are not light enough to receive help for that eating disorder, because you don’t hit a certain point on the graph.” Regardless of what that person’s frame or exercise patterns have been, by taking that decision, one is actually making someone’s medical condition more difficult to treat because somebody is looking at the guideline and saying, “This is where you should be.” This is a difficult situation for everybody. Certain medics will be better at this than others.

Here, I should probably say why I took an interest in this issue in the first place. According to this measure, I, like everybody I played rugby with, was dead a while ago. As somebody who once had somebody put a hand on his shoulder and say, “You were born to play prop forward,” I possibly have a bit of an axe to grind. To use myself as an example, I once had a neck injury and a chap—he became best man at my wedding and I was best man at his—looked at me and said, “You’ve got a neck injury? What neck?” We have to carry a bit of this.

This approach does not work for people like me. We are constantly told to lose weight. I remember being told by a doctor when I was having a check-up for some insurance, “Well, according to this, you are too heavy,” and in the same week being shouted at by a coach, “You’re not eating enough for my exercise programme.” Of the two, I know which one I listened to. But if you take this type of information that pays absolutely no attention to physique or exercise pattern, you will get bad answers, which do not help with any form of general public health pattern. You cannot say, “This is what you should be.”

I know that we are trying to move slightly away from this approach. I have heard people say, “Take certain measurements and get the relationship across.” If you do a calculation like that, you are still going to get it wrong, even if it is slightly more accurate slightly more often. Medical professionals should be looking at somebody individually. If they cannot do that, they should withhold an opinion. I know that it is more convenient to look at a chart and say, “You are X height, you should be X weight,” but it does not work. It never has.

I have done some work on this in the past. This approach was invented in the late 1950s, I think, although the noble Lord may have better information. It was thought that it would do as a general guideline. We have got bigger since, with higher protein diets, and are slightly taller and bigger-framed. It is out of date even for an active person who is not carrying any muscle mass. If you are any form of athlete or taking any form of physical activity, you will acquire some muscle mass and muscle is much heavier than fat. Get a person healthy and fit and make sure that they do not hit your medical targets: why do we still have this? It does not seem to work at any conceivable level. It is telling people to attain to something and repeating the messages, “Nobody is perfect” and “Do something else”. It encourages damaging behaviour. It gives wrong information to medical professionals, who often look at somebody and say, “Ignore it.” Why are we still using it? Can we not just take it out and ask for assessments? An assessment is looking at somebody and assessing their activity patterns. Otherwise, we are going to continue to have these problems.

This is either wasting printing paper or slowing certain people down from getting the help and treatment that they need. Adhering to it makes it more difficult to get early treatment for eating disorders. Everybody knows that you must get in early, establish the patterns of behaviour and convince that person to change those patterns of behaviour. Anything working against that should be removed.

I could go on at length, but the danger of being totally self-indulgent is looming towards me, so I will conclude my remarks by asking the Government just a couple of questions. First, if this was proposed to the Government now, would they use it? Would they take and use an arbitrary level that does not correctly assess anything other than for a small percentage of the population? Secondly, if the Government would not take on something like that now, what would they recommend to doctors to assess health and well-being in the general population? Would it be easier to administer or not? The answer is probably not, but a bit of effort might help us to get a better public health outcome.

14:39

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling the Question. We may be debating some of these broadly related issues in even greater depth in the future, because the facts of life are that we have one of the unhealthiest populations in the whole of Europe. We now have some opportunities to review what we have been doing and what we might need to do in the future to improve our health. I have been given a good briefing by Diabetes UK, and I express my gratitude to it because I am one of those on the cusp of developing type 2 diabetes. That has been identified by two factors: a blood test and a BMI measurement with my doctor.

Without any doubt there are problems for those with eating disorders, and we need to address them, but we must be careful to ensure the right balance in dealing with the country’s health problems. The reality is that we have a greater problem—the numbers are much bigger—with people with excess weight than with those with too little weight.

While we acknowledge that there can be challenges in using and interpreting BMI as a measurement, as the noble Lord pointed out, the call for it to be scrapped could negatively impact on the care of those such as myself who are at risk of diabetes. Used appropriately, BMI can provide valuable information for care focused on individuals that does not discriminate against anyone. It is important that healthcare professionals take a person-centred approach to discussing weight and health, use appropriate language and consider the use of BMI based on individual circumstances. There are instances where the use of BMI may not be appropriate, so healthcare professionals should take a person-centred approach to weight and health. We hope that the integration of care outlined in the White Paper will boost the role of personalised care.

BMI is also an important tool for monitoring the population’s overall health and informing policy decisions. If we do not have that, we have to know what the alternative is to be able to make such assessments about the state of the nation’s health. Most recently, BMI data has been fundamental in the rollout of the QCovid population risk assessment, which identified 1.7 million people at increased risk of hospitalisation and death from coronavirus and enabled them to be added to the shielding list in March 2021. Without the use of BMI, that kind of population-based intervention would not have been possible and many lives would have been put at risk. I argue that we must retain what we have at the moment until something better is found.

14:43

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing the debate. BMI is used globally as a tool to assess a person’s size. It is a quick and cheap way to make estimations about an individual’s potential risk of disease or poor health. However imperfect a measure of health it is, I doubt that our discussion here, or the Select Committee’s report, will change the way doctors measure their patients and the risks to their health. The overall message of the report, however, drawing attention to the damaging nature of weight stigma and the consequences it can bring, is of course important.

Whatever measure used, what is also important is for healthcare professionals to feel able, without embarrassment, to discuss patients’ health and weight with them and, by using appropriate language, explain the long-term consequences of an unhealthy lifestyle. People need knowledge, support and encouragement, as well as a healthier environment, to make the changes necessary to improve their own lifestyles and thus take pressure off the health system.

Excess weight is one of the few modifiable factors for Covid, and our high obesity figures are one of the reasons why this country has been so badly hit. But even before the virus, it was clear that the unhealthy lifestyles so many in this country now lead were resulting in preventable diseases such as type 2 diabetes, liver disease, heart disease, some cancers, arthritis, the wearing out of hip and knee joints, and the discomfort of general ill health. Many of these conditions can be reversed by changing to a healthy diet. People need—and polling of up to 80% approval shows that they want—informed choices. The Government’s population-wide Better Health agenda is crucial to providing this. I commend them for the bold approach in the obesity strategy and urge them to stick to it.

Advertising works. If it did not then the food industry, particularly the ultra-processed and fast-food industry, would not do it. A KFC “Mighty bucket for one”, apparently the perfect meal for one person, contains 1,155 calories—over half the suggested intake. It is currently advertised everywhere. Young people are bombarded by paid influencers via social media. This needs to stop for their health’s sake.

Calorie labelling is crucial to success. Most people are unaware and polling shows that they want to know. Surveys show that 80% of adults do not know the calorie content of common drinks, which is substantial. A large glass of wine, for example, has around 200 calories, about the same as a doughnut. Unless people are supported and encouraged to move to a healthier lifestyle—and BMI is an important tool in the journey—with a better diet, a healthy weight and regular exercise, it will not just be Covid which affects them because the NHS, already under strain, will be unable to cope with the tsunami of obesity-related health issues coming down the track.

14:46

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for introducing this debate and delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin of Kennington. She takes food extremely seriously. I remember going to dinners with her when she took her own meagre dinner with her, because she was raising funds for charity by living on a very small amount to demonstrate not only that it is possible but the miserable lives that so many lead.

When we think of that sort of poverty and lack of food, to think of people in this country deliberately starving themselves is particularly difficult. Nevertheless, BMI is only part of identifying eating disorders. It is, however, a very important public health measure, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, that we should not throw out a measure which works helpfully as a public health guide. For instance, the shielding during Covid that was brought into play for those who had a particularly high BMI has proved effective.

Nevertheless, when GPs or other specialists use BMI it should be only part of an armoury of tools at their disposal. It is certainly not the only way in which eating disorders could or should be discovered. What is painfully clear is that people with anorexia are obvious just on sight; no GP needs to look at a BMI reading to spot anorexia. All too often, though, I fear that GPs are reluctant to diagnose eating disorders, in part because of the lack of services to deal with those conditions quickly when they need to be dealt with immediately. Anorexia is one of the most, if not the most, pernicious forms of mental illness and extremely hard to treat, but it is better caught early, as with so many diseases. Doctors use judgment and have to be relied upon to use it when wielding BMI as part of their armoury of tools.

Most important, though, is coping with the outbreak of obesity that has now hit this country, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, pointed out. Excess weight is a huge problem and really needs to be dealt with as a matter of urgency for this country. It was highlighted by Covid but it will become much worse, as many have put on weight during the lockdowns. BMI will be part of the measures for dealing with that.

14:49

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will not be surprised if I turn to sport to assess the effectiveness of BMI as a medical guideline. Ashling O’Connor, one of the finest sports journalists of her day, wrote at the turn of the century about the need for the Ministry of Defence to take note of modern sports science after its long-held physical standards for new recruits were excluding exceptional candidates, including top rugby players. The Army’s weight limit, based on the BMI classification, was based on a calculation that divided height in metres squared by weight in kilograms. That would have discounted many Olympic gold medal winners.

Much was made at the time of the case of the two finest Olympians this country has produced. Sir Matthew Pinsent would not have been admitted to the ranks, as he weighed more than 17 stone, because, standing 6 foot 4 inches, his BMI would have been above the limit of 28. Sir Steve Redgrave—five times rowing gold medallist in an exceptionally tough endurance sport and in my opinion the finest athlete this country has ever produced—would only have sneaked in under the bar, with a BMI of 27.6. Ray Stevens, winner of a silver medal in judo in Barcelona in 1992, would definitely not have qualified at 6 foot and 15 stone, despite being able to bench press for 25 reps and run competitive half marathons. It is therefore not surprising that the English Institute of Sport discounts the outdated BMI test in favour of a more sophisticated method, such as skinfold callipers which squeeze subcutaneous tissue, and dual energy absorptiometry and body scanners measuring bone density.

Of course, we should place BMI in context, which, with slight variations over time, is your weight in pounds times 703 divided by your height in inches squared. Being based simply on height and weight, it takes no account of body fat percentage, muscle mass, bone thickness or genetic disposition to a certain frame. It assumes that everyone has the same percentage of lean tissue and fat tissue and it takes no account of those athletes who clearly have much more lean muscle mass than the average person. These facts seriously challenge the base assumptions behind the BMI formula. It exaggerates thinness in short individuals and fatness in tall and muscular individuals. The higher muscle content—in other words, lean mass—in athletes skews BMI, as lean mass is approximately 22% denser than fat tissue.

Although BMI has been adopted by the WHO as an international measure of obesity, it lacks a theoretical basis, and empirical evidence suggests that it is not valid for all populations. What can be said in its favour is that it is simple: it is a rough and ready calculation to an indirect health indicator of obesity or being overweight. I would expect the use of BMI to decline as a useful test and new measures such as the Bod Pod and hydrostatic weighing to take prominence, not least by the World Health Organization.

Having heard my noble friend Lord Addington’s speech, I have no doubt that all his points, and those made by other speakers, will be taken into consideration by the Government. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

14:52

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, when I entered this House, 25 years ago, it was my noble friend Lord Addington’s body mass that aided the House of Lords in becoming unbeatable in the annual tug of war with the House of Commons. I am very pleased about that.

Yesterday’s Question Time in the Lords gave us a dry run for some of the issues being raised in today’s debate when the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, drew attention to a report by the World Obesity Federation linking obesity and deaths from Covid. The full range of the debate about obesity was on show, from those advocating making obesity not socially acceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, making it clear that it was not the Government’s intention to shame those who are overweight.

If obesity is the health challenge that I believe it is then we need to get the science right. We have heard from my noble friend Lord Addington and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, reasons why we should give credence to the advice of Caroline Nokes and the Women and Equalities Committee on not using the body mass index for weight shaming and recommending that it should be scrapped. But as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, indicated, we have also had advice from Diabetes UK, which says,

“while we acknowledge that there can be challenges in interpreting and using BMI as a measurement, the call for it to be scrapped could negatively impact on the care of those living with or at risk of diabetes.”

So the Committee will be interested to hear the Minister’s assessment of the validity of BMI in assessing weight and health risks.

I would also be interested in the Minister’s response to the challenges raised yesterday and today regarding poverty and obesity in both parents and children as well as the problems caused by the promotion, particularly to young women, of unrealistic ideals of body image, which all too often can lead to anorexia and other health harms. We must not lose sight of the fact that obesity brings with it ill health and threats to life, but countering it requires sensitivity and understanding as well as practical help based on sound science. It is a difficult path to tread. I look forward to hearing about that in the Minister’s reply.

14:55

[Baroness Redfern (Con) [V]]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for introducing this short debate on the effectiveness of the body mass index. I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute.

My focus will be to highlight the effect of childhood obesity, which we know is significantly increasing. This is where the Government urgently require further action in tackling significant inequalities in physical and mental health outcomes. It also represents a major challenge for the Government’s levelling-up agenda with regard to opportunities and outcomes for our young people.

The effects of weight bias and obesity stigma can be particularly severe for children. They can experience a greater chance of being bullied, leading to low self-esteem and poorer academic performance, which can severely affect their life chances. It is tragic, too, that many children growing up will also have associated health risks, such as type 2 diabetes, cancer and heart disease.

When used appropriately, body mass index can provide valuable information for care focused on individuals that does not discriminate against anyone. It is important that healthcare professionals take a person-centred approach to discussing weight and health, use appropriate language and consider the use of BMI based on individual circumstances.

There are also clear opportunities for highlighting the contents of food. Retail outlets also must step up and support a move towards much clearer food labelling, particularly with additional nutritional and calorific labelling on the front of packaging in our supermarkets, cafés, restaurants and takeaways. Let us not forget all those highly calorific soft drinks, which must be addressed. We need stricter guidelines regarding rules on advertising. Evidence shows that children who are already classed as obese or overweight eat more in response to advertising.

Weight loss has been shown to bring undeniable health benefits, so does the Minister agree that, in any new plans, front-line services should provide obesity support in all the right cases?

Finally, I support BMI measurements in the context of them being used for informed, holistic and person-centred care where appropriate and where they can provide valuable information for care.

14:58

[Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his passionate introduction to this debate.

I applaud the Women and Equalities Committee’s work highlighting the impacts of the use of BMI on eating disorders and people’s mental health by disrupting their body image. Eating disorders are not niche. The 2019 NHS health survey found that

“16% of adults … screened positive for a possible eating disorder”.

Covid has increased the pressure on eating disorder services hugely, with referrals across the country increasing by 75% on average.

There is still an overreliance on BMI by GPs when diagnosing eating disorders to determine who is unwell enough to access treatment. Hope Virgo’s “Dump the Scales” campaign has literally hundreds of people, mainly young women, sharing how damaging it was to be told that they were not thin enough for treatment. It drives them deeper into this pernicious illness, which I know about from our family’s experience. Indeed, the evidence shows that early intervention is far better and offers the best hope of recovery.

The Government and the NICE guidelines are clear: BMI should not be used on its own as an arbiter of whether to offer treatment, yet GPs are still doing this. Why? First, there is inadequate training for GPs and other health professionals about eating disorders. The issue was identified by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman in his report on eating disorder services in 2017, in the follow-up report by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in 2019, and in the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough coroner’s prevention of future deaths report last month, to which the Secretary of State has to respond formally by next Wednesday. Will the Government now lead a strategy to improve eating disorder education in the medical profession, including embedding it in the curriculum? For GPs already in surgeries, a screening tool should be produced to ensure that, instead of relying on BMI, they ask the right questions of patients, with clear guidance on the language to use.

Secondly, GPs are using BMI to ration access to services as demand hugely outstrips supply. I welcome the Government’s recent investments in mental health funding, but it is mainly for children and young people, and only one in six eating disorder patients is under 18. Given the rise in demand, significantly exacerbated by Covid, without ring-fenced funding BMI will continue to be used to limit access to eating-disorder services, resulting in further unnecessary deaths.

15:01

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, who spoke cogently on this subject, as she always does. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on securing this important debate.

The past year has highlighted the importance of health and, specifically, of weight as a determinant of health. Just yesterday, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, reminded us, the Minister stressed the importance of combating obesity and the historic challenge we have in our country in tackling obesity. Apart from age, it is the single most important factor in tackling Covid-19, for example.

I also welcome the broader message that the Minister has given out on more than one occasion about the importance of preventive healthcare and the accent we should all place on a healthy diet, an exercise regime, such as walking and cycling, and maintaining a healthy weight in so far as one can. I welcome any rebalancing of our approach to health in this way for the future. I think that is important and welcome.

I appreciate, as others do, that BMI is not a perfect guide to a healthy weight—far from it. For example, as we know, muscle is denser than fat, so somebody who has a muscular build will be heavier than somebody who does not, and different people may be susceptible to some diseases and so on. BMI clearly needs to be used alongside other factors—that is crucial.

However, from the perspective of getting the basic message across, there is no doubt in my mind that in tackling obesity the use of BMI is the right call to arms, although I accept we need to be very much alive to the mental challenge of the eating disorders that confront many people. It is undoubtedly the case, as the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, has just said, that pressure from Covid-19 has increased problems in relation to finding treatment for eating disorders. I would welcome the Minister saying something on this when he sums up.

I also look forward to hearing from the Minister about what specific actions Her Majesty’s Government are looking at around whether to nudge people with incentives, or at least opportunities, to exercise across the country; whether to take action to influence diet, for example, through school meals, hospital meals and meals in other institutions; how we are going to control excess sugar and salt in our diets, possibly through restrictions; and how we are going to control the advertising of unhealthy foods and drinks. These are important issues that we need to confront for the future and one of the lessons that we can clearly learn from the Covid pandemic.

15:04

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on securing this debate. I also support calls from the Obesity Health Alliance to extend calorie counting information to cafes, restaurants and takeaways, both to inform the public and to encourage providers to offer both healthier options and perhaps—one element that is little talked about—reduced portion sizes.

Curtailing the promotion of foods high in fat, sugar and salt is essential. A recent survey cited by Diabetes UK in its helpful briefing reports that 74% of the public support not showing advertisements for junk food before 9 pm, on TV or online. Why only 9 pm? Why should such foods be promoted for adults? Type 2 diabetes is one of the fastest-growing health problems. It accounts for 10% of NHS spending already, and obesity accounts for 80% to 85% of the risk of getting diabetes, with 12.3 million people estimated already to be at risk.

As others have said, Covid carried particular risks for people who were obese. There are significant other health risks as well, including heart conditions, some cancers and respiratory problems. BMI may be a handy starting point, a quick and cheap way for estimating the number of those at risk of health problems. It is crude—the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan are correct that sports people will have particular muscle mass and bone density advantages which turn into disadvantages when measured on a BMI basis—but this issue needs to be built on. As we know, BMI is just one basic measure. It does not account for individual differences.

Of course, body image issues contribute significantly to mental health and well-being. They can bring on or reinforce a sense of inadequacy. Fat shaming, anorexia and bulimia tend to be indicative of mental health problems. BMI therefore needs to be supplemented by blood pressure, ECG, cholesterol and muscle mass assessments, as well as, crucially, mental health assessments that can spot problems that may otherwise soon lead to health issues.

15:08

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Addington on securing this debate. Having played rugby with him—and you cannot get closer to the noble Lord than being in the second row pushing against his noble backside— I suppose that, according to his opening remarks, I should be dead.

I share my noble friend’s concern about the misuse of and over-reliance on the BMI. To create a lifestyle that is dependent on staying within its limits is a mistake. It depends where your fat is stored. If your weight is around your waist disproportionately, you may well be within the BMI range but nevertheless at risk of heart disease, diabetes and other conditions. Studies instituted by Mark Hamer at Loughborough University some three or four years ago demonstrated that waist-to-hip ratio was a far better body indicator of health and longevity than the BMI.

I thoroughly agree with the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the expert research to which he referred. It shows, in short, that if you need braces as well as a belt to keep your trousers from slipping below your knees, you are in trouble—which I know, because that was my condition before I was diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma a couple of years ago. I have just now returned from my daily 7,000 paces with four inches off my waist and no braces. I cannot wait to get back on the water in a rowing eight—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, will share my desire.

Life expectancy is increasing, but that does not necessarily mean an increase in healthy life years; it may be extra years of chronic ill health. The Scottish health survey published in the British Medical Bulletin in 2011 showed that, in the 10 years between 1998 and 2008, waist circumference increased by 5 to 10 centimetres in both sexes at ages between 50 and 70 years without a corresponding increase in BMI. It was thought to indicate an unfortunate circumstance of gain in visceral fat mass and loss of lean tissue. Both are major determining factors of ill health in the elderly.

The Women and Equalities Committee in the other place was right to find that BMI has turned into a justification for weight shaming and body image anxiety among the young. But, as I have said, it can be equally misleading as a guide to a healthy old age and, for this reason as well, the use of BMI as a measure of healthy weight should stop.

15:12

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on this debate, which has already raised many interesting issues. Indeed, the report of the Women and Equalities Committee into body image is not new. Over 40 years ago, Susie Orbach wrote Fat is a Feminist Issue; she challenged body mass index as a measure of—as she said—“nothing useful” and pointed out how it affected women’s self-image. On the 40th anniversary of FIFI, as many of us know it, she said:

“When you grow up absorbing the idea that food is quasi-dangerous, it is hard to know how to handle it. There are no end of experts selling their wares whose books and products end up generating enormous profits … So, too, with other food and diet fads. The desperation that exists to be at peace and dwell in our bodies clashes with the knowledge that such schemas promote or reinforce confusion about appetite and desire.”


The fact is that, 40 years on, it is still pretty grim:

“It’s a story of … destabilising the eating of many western women and exporting body hatred all over the world as a sign of modernity”,


as a way of medicalising and pathologising

“people’s relationship to food and bodies so successfully that vast industries would grow up to treat problems that these industries had themselves instigated.”

What is clear from this short debate is that it should come as no surprise that BMI as a single measure would not be expected to identify cardiovascular health or illness; the same is true for cholesterol, blood sugar and blood pressure. As a single measure, BMI is clearly not a perfect measure of health, but it is probably a useful starting point for important conditions when a person is overweight or obese.

The Select Committee said that it was

“not satisfied with the use of BMI as a measurement to evaluate individual health.”

On the other hand, as other noble Lords have said, Diabetes UK says that it provides

“valuable information for care focused on individuals that doesn’t discriminate against anyone.”

I dispute that, but it also goes on to say that it has been an important tool for monitoring the population’s health and informing policy decisions and has been fundamental in the rollout of the Covid population risk assessment, which identified 1.7 million people at increased risk of hospitalisation and death from coronavirus. Without that use of BMI, a population-based intervention would not have been possible.

The challenge for the Minister is how to reconcile these issues. I look forward to hearing his answer.

15:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)]

My Lords, I too am enormously grateful for the successful efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in securing this important and insightful debate. Any debate on our weight, health and fitness is extremely personal and bound to arouse emotions. It certainly does in my household, and so it does in this Room. I very much welcome, though, a national conversation about these issues. It is the right time to be having it.

As noble Lords have pointed out, we face two major challenges. The first is that too many people are overweight or living with obesity. I have already spoken this week about this grave challenge faced by this country, which was clearly outlined by the World Obesity Federation report on Covid death. That is a real wake-up call. The Government have already swung into action to a degree. More is planned. We are trying our hardest to address the knotty problem that few countries have ever completed successfully.

The second issue that the country faces is that too many people have eating disorders that make their lives a misery and threaten their health. I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken movingly on this subject. Although she did not speak this afternoon, I reference the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, who recently arranged a stakeholder session with me that gave me first-hand testimony from those seeking to address these important issues.

I fear that poor old BMI, the much-maligned metric and subject of this debate, has in some ways become a surrogate and a scapegoat in a battle between two groups that see these two big issues—obesity and eating disorders—as somehow in conflict with each other. I do not want to take sides in any such battle. While I always welcome policy dialectic and the battle of ideas to hammer out the most sensible policy on complex issues, I do not think this should be a zero-sum game with winners and losers on opposing sides. Instead, I would like to work towards finding a way through, because it is imperative that, as policymakers, government Ministers understand the impact of our policies in one area on our policies in another area and somehow find a way of tackling them both in a complementary fashion.

Before I try to do that, let me say a few words in defence of the poor old maligned metric, BMI. It is, as noble Lords have pointed out, a very simple calculation—body weight divided by the square of height. It has been used by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the World Health Organization and countless health organisations around the world for decades as just this: a simple first step to establish if individuals might be carrying too much or too little body fat for their long-term good health. To answer the noble Lord, Lord McNally: as risk assessments go, BMI has proven value year after year, study after study, in countries around the world, for predicting premature death and many chronic diseases, including type 2 diabetes, some cancers and some heart disease. As my noble friend Lady Jenkin rightly pointed out, it is simple to measure and highly reproduceable. It does not require specialist equipment or clinical training, unlike many methods of assessment noble Lords mentioned.

None the less I recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, pointed out, that it is not perfect for all people. Muscly athletes are considered too fat, and it is problematic for the very old. It is not unique, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, pointed out, a measuring tape around the waist is also very insightful. But it works for most people very well. The reality is that most people who have a high BMI are also at risk of ill health and premature death. When establishing an individual’s health risk, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, is right: health professionals must use follow-up measures and assessments as well, such as waist circumference. NICE is crystal clear about this and, as my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft pointed out, BMI is just the recommended first step in the assessment pathway.

I hear the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, loud and clear. I have read the stories to which she referred. I am extremely disappointed by them. It is not right and it is not recommended in the eating disorder commissioning guide. I agree that we need to listen to patients much better. I agree completely with my noble friend Lady Altmann that, in such cases, mental health assessments are absolutely essential. Similar safeguards apply to assessing whether someone is underweight, and of course it is absolutely true that conditions such as anorexia and other eating disorders require specialist assessment. NICE is looking at ways to improve the metric for ethnicity and other factors. None the less, given the large international evidence base underpinning BMI, its simplicity and its wide international use, I do not see it as likely that there will be wholesale change.

BMI is an essential tool in our battle against obesity. We have a huge problem in this area: six out of 10 adults and more than one in three children aged between 10 and 11 are overweight or living with obesity. In my briefing, I have page after page on the impact of obesity on the lives and futures of British families. It has a huge impact on the NHS, the causes of cancer and the causes of diabetes. It has an impact on women: obese women are 12.7 times more likely to develop type 2 diabetes and three and a half times more likely to have a heart attack than women who are a healthy weight. I could go on and on.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, rightly explained, it is children who are overweight or living with obesity who are sometimes affected the most. In particular, many experience bullying, low self-esteem and a lower quality of life. They are more likely to continue to be overweight or living with obesity into adulthood, which in turn increases their risk of type 2 diabetes, cardio- vascular disease and other chronic illnesses. We must do something to address this issue.

As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and my noble friend Lady Jenkin rightly said, during the pandemic we have seen a stark illustration of the impact of living with obesity. That is why we are acting. To answer my noble friend Lord Bourne, we are tackling the nation’s obesity with a new strategy. Published in July last year, it set out measures to get the nation fit and healthy, protect against Covid-19 and protect the NHS.

As my noble friend Lady Jenkin pointed out, there are many nudges in shops, on TV, on computers and on phones that encourage us to buy less healthy food. The Government are committed to restricting further the advertising of less healthy food on TV, and we are considering online restrictions on the promotion of less healthy food in shops. We are also committed to calorie labelling in restaurants and improving front-of-pack labelling on pre-packed foods. These actions are about helping people to make healthy choices.

At the same time, there is another issues that we must face: the national crisis around body identity and self-confidence, which, in some, manifests itself as extreme eating disorders or as mental health challenges. The Women and Equalities Committee report put it extremely well. Acute anorexia is a particularly distressing mental health condition that can ruin lives and cause horrible worries for the families of those concerned. That is why our mental health recovery plan is putting £500 million into work to ensure that we have the right support for people with mental illness, and I am encouraging further policy on positive body imagery.

I want to make my point clearly: I am concerned that there is a perception that these two agendas are somehow at odds with each other—that if we put calorie counts on menus, we will somehow trigger mental health episodes for those with eating disorders or reinforce a damaging body image culture, or that if we push our message on healthy lifestyles too much, we will stigmatise those with sensitivities about their body image. I simply do not accept that this needs to be the case. While I do not discount people’s lived experiences, it is important that we know what we are buying. The calorie count of everyday food available in fast-food chains is often absolutely shocking. The food we grab on the go or have delivered to our homes is now a big part of our diet, yet there is huge ignorance about what that food contains.

Collectively, we need to somehow work a way through this. The maths of it are really simple: there are 725,000 people with eating disorders in the UK. That number may be higher, as I recognise that some struggle to seek support and are not included in the figures. We must do everything we can to bring them the clinical support they need to address their significant mental health issues, so that they can live resilient lives and deal with the stresses of everyday living. At the same time, there are millions of schoolchildren and young people living with poor mental health. My DCMS colleagues are doing everything they can to address the challenges of social media in their lives.

In addition, there are 28.9 million adults in England who are either overweight or living with obesity. Somehow, we need to inspire those people to take on board a healthy lifestyle, which means changing their diets and taking more exercise. These are tough decisions that people can only make for themselves. It is not our business to deal in shame; we are dealing in honesty. That is where the BMI comes in, because it is a simple, unequivocal and, for most people, accurate predictor of risky lifestyles.

It is not beyond our intellectual capabilities to find a way through this conundrum. I am hugely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for bringing us the opportunity to debate these sensitive subjects, and I hope very much that we can work together to find an answer to this challenge.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)]

The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 3.30 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.

15:26

Sitting suspended.

Arrangement of Business

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Grand Committee

Announcement

15:30

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.

Alcohol Harm Commission: Report 2020

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

15:31

Asked by

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report by the Commission on Alcohol Harm 2020 ‘It’s everywhere’—alcohol’s public face and private harm, published on 14 September 2020.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I had the privilege of leading a group of 16 experts to investigate one of the most pressing issues of the day: the harm caused by alcohol. I extend my sincere thanks to each of those 16, who gave their time and expertise so generously in their dedication to reducing alcohol harm. The findings of the Commission on Alcohol Harm were stark. One cannot overstate the sheer scale of the harm caused by alcohol every day to individuals, those around them and society. Alcohol is linked to 80 deaths every day across the UK and, most worryingly, it kills people when they are young. Alcohol is responsible for more years of working life lost than the 10 most frequent cancers combined.

However, the commission found that alcohol harm extends beyond health. We heard a great deal about the impact on families: 200,000 children are estimated to live with an alcohol-dependent parent, making them five times more likely to develop eating disorders and three times as likely to consider suicide. Some children are harmed even before they are born. Exposure to alcohol in the womb can cause foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, a lifelong developmental condition found in up to 17% of UK children.

The links between alcohol, violent crime and anti-social behaviour are strong. Alcohol fuels almost 40% of violent crimes and half of domestic violence. Drunk-driving causes almost 9,000 casualties and 260 deaths a year. Police Sergeant Mick Urwin told us that

“delivering a death message to a parent, brother, sister, son or daughter to inform them that someone has been killed by a drink driver is not something I ever got used to”.

The burden falls on all society, particularly public services. There are 1.26 million alcohol-related hospital admissions annually and alcohol costs the NHS £3.5 billion. The cost of alcohol-related crime is even higher, at £11.4 billion per annum. That is why sentencing to alcohol abstinence and monitoring is so important, with its high compliance rate allowing people to face and tackle their harmful drinking, and it has been shown to decrease repeat offending.

The extent of these harms is truly shocking but is no surprise, as alcohol is ubiquitous. That is why we titled the commission’s report It’s Everywhere—a quote from a witness. We heard how alcohol is all around us: at social gatherings, on TV, in supermarkets, card shops and the workplace, and at all times of day or night. People told us they could not escape from alcohol; “relentless” was a word we heard repeatedly. Although national consumption has fallen from 2004’s historical high, especially as more young people abstain, the increases in measures of harm and deaths persist.

Alcohol’s harm is often hidden in plain sight, leaving people to deal with it alone, unsupported. The stigma of harmful drinking makes people conceal their problem. Children instinctively understand that they are expected to keep quiet about their parents’ drinking. To quote another witness:

“Families and children like us didn’t and won’t discuss it for fear of being separated, being taken away from parents, being singled out ... feeling embarrassed, scared of repercussions and fear of retribution”.


The alcohol industry’s “personal responsibility” framing blames individuals for their drinking. Stigmatisation makes it harder to seek help. Blame lies within the product itself: alcohol is addictive. It can turn people’s lives upside down, as anyone listening to “The Archers” at the moment will know. It warrants careful regulation, hence the commission’s recommendations.

First, we call for an alcohol strategy. The last was almost 10 years ago. Revision is urgently needed—last year, alcohol deaths reached their highest level since records began. The updated strategy needs to include evidence-based policies to reduce the affordability, availability and marketing of alcohol. These tools, recommended by the World Health Organization, proved effective at tackling tobacco use. Let us look at each in turn.

Alcohol harm and price are directly linked. The alcohol duty system is inconsistent and perverse—white cider at 19p a unit feeds addiction. Affordability has grown significantly in the last four decades, driven by low prices in off-trade settings. Cuts to alcohol duty at the annual Budget have not helped—beer duty is now 21% lower than in 2012-13 according to the Institute of Alcohol Studies. We urgently need minimum unit pricing in England, as already introduced in Scotland and more recently in Wales. Tax should be proportionate to the harm caused.

The commission heard from witnesses how the constant availability of alcohol affects those who drink. One individual told us:

“My dad can’t help drinking. Every day we need bread, milk etc from the shop next to our house. When he goes in, the temptation is too much for him. It’s not his fault when it’s staring him in the face. Maybe if we didn’t live near a shop he wouldn’t be able to get drink as easily.”


Local authorities told us that they struggle to reduce availability under the current licensing regime. The UK Government could follow Scotland to allow local authorities to consider public health as a distinct licensing objective when assessing licensing applications.

Advertising and marketing set the tone for our relationship with alcohol. The alcohol industry spends hundreds of millions of pounds on advertising, much of which can be seen by children and vulnerable individuals, such as those with addiction. Children’s exposure to alcohol marketing makes them more likely to consume alcohol and to start consuming it at an earlier age. Opinion polling carried out for the Alcohol Health Alliance showed that 75% of the public support reducing children’s exposure to alcohol advertising. Many countries, such as France, restrict such marketing to better protect their populations. We should follow suit.

Consumers have a right to know what they are drinking. It is bizarre that currently there are fewer legal requirements for information on a bottle of wine than on a carton of orange juice. Unlike soft drinks, alcoholic drinks do not have to list their calories or sugar content or ingredients. Consumer information is grossly inadequate, as there is no statutory requirement for drinks to carry a health warning, warnings about alcohol in pregnancy, or the weekly guideline for low-risk consumption. Without label information, consumers are unaware of the risks and cannot make informed decisions.

Time does not allow me to cover the toll on the NHS and social care, where the burden of alcohol harm ultimately falls. Suffice it to remind your Lordships that alcohol is the leading risk factor for death, ill health and disability in 15 to 49 year-olds in England. It was causal in almost 12,000 cancers in 2015—that is 33 people a day—particularly cancers of the mouth, pharynx, oesophagus, larynx, breast, bowel and liver. It is also a factor in over 200 other diseases and injuries, including hypertension, heart disease, stroke, gastrointestinal disorders, brain damage and mental illness. Deaths from alcohol liver disease have increased 400% since 1970.

The Government have tackled tobacco harms and shown in their recent obesity strategy a willingness to take bold action to protect the public’s health. With an estimated 1.6 million adults in England having some degree of alcohol dependency, I hope that the Government will show the same boldness and heed our report’s recommendations.

15:41

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Finlay for her powerful introduction. I declare an interest as one of the members of her commission, which she so admirably steered to producing such a wonderful report.

In the limited time that we have, I want to focus on calories. I have been banging on about calories since the Labour Government were in power and about the need for calories to be shown on labels for alcohol. Why is the drinks industry exempt from telling people what they are consuming and what it might do to them?

I am pleased that we are starting to make some progress. There is a firm recommendation in this report and I hope that the Minister will be positive. One of the old excuses for why we could not do anything was that we were in the European Union and legislation and regulations there prevented us from acting unilaterally. We have now come out of Europe and we now have the freedom to do as we choose. I look to see whether the Minister will take sides on this issue, now that he has the freedom to do so, if required.

I had a useful conversation this morning with Sir Keith Mills, who has been appointed by the Prime Minister to review the way in which incentives might be used to encourage people to reduce their weight and exercise more. He is looking at new technologies; there are some developments taking place that are of some significance. I see that the Minister is nodding in agreement, so perhaps when he comes to respond he might say a little more about that. A change would allow an app, on our mobile or on our wrist, to tell us, for all items that have calories marked on them, just what we are purchasing. We would know what is in our shopping basket while still in the supermarket. That would be a big change. We should not permit the drinks industry to be exempt from that change.

I hope that the Minister will assure us that the consultation will be concluded soon and the Government will come out with a strong indication that, for the first time ever, we will have formal labelling on alcoholic drinks.

15:43

[Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I declare an interest as co-chair of the All-Party Group on Liver Health, for which this is a very relevant debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for all her work in this field.

What do we need to make inroads on this problem? Obviously, first, we need better access to treatment. Secondly, Scotland’s minimum unit pricing saw a net reduction in off-trade sales by 4% to 5% in its first year. That is worth while, but it is not enough in itself.

Recent research by Cardiff University—I declare an interest as chancellor of that university—has demonstrated the link between food purchases and alcohol purchases. Buying the food for our meal literally prompts us to pick up the bottle of wine or beer from the next aisle of the supermarket. This research suggests that food and alcohol sales need to be separated and not part of the same trip to the till. Many other countries do this. I recall that in Australia the same supermarket sold both sets of items, but you went to a totally separate section and paid a separate bill for the alcohol. Finland, Sweden, Canada and some parts of the US apply similar rules. The Government should explore this.

We need further controls on the advertising of alcohol. Finally, we need more information on labels and when we buy alcohol in the pub. If we buy a lemonade or crisps or a bar of chocolate, we know the calories and contents. When we drink a glass of wine, we deserve to have access to the same information on calories and the number of units.

15:45

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)]

My Lords, as another of the commissioners, albeit a rather absentee one, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for instigating this debate and to all those who participated in the report either as witnesses or by taking evidence. Its findings were powerful and worrying.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and I worked together in 2011 to persuade the Government to legislate for compulsory sobriety tagging for alcohol-related crimes. The alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement, which checks offenders’ intake every 30 minutes, was piloted successfully and is now rolled out across the country. There is a clear connection between problematic alcohol consumption and crime, particularly heavy drinking or binge-drinking and violent crime. The most recent findings, from the Crime Survey for England and Wales in 2018, estimate that the proportion of violent incidents where the victim believed the offender to be under the influence of alcohol was 39%. The estimated total social and economic cost of alcohol-related harm in 2018 was £21.5 billion.

Reducing alcohol-related crime will mean fewer victims, save taxpayers’ money and have a positive impact in communities and on individuals. The legislation to introduce this solution to alcohol-related crimes took more than 10 years from conception, when Boris Johnson as Mayor of London first asked for it, to final implementation. It is a common-sense, effective, value-for-money solution. Why did it take so long?

In the time I have left, I, like others, commend the Government for their commitment to calorie labelling of alcoholic drinks as part of the obesity strategy. Polling shows that the UK public are overwhelmingly supportive of health and nutritional information on alcohol labels. It is clearly absurd that alcohol-free beer, for example, shows nutritional information but ordinary beer does not. This has to change. It is another common-sense, effective policy and I urge the Government to stick to their plans.

15:47

[Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I chaired a committee for the Home Office in 1987 on young people, alcohol and crime. Many of the recommendations in this report, ‘It’s Everywhere’ - Alcohol’s Public Face and Private Harm, are similar to those in the 1987 report.

After the report in 1987, I learned that advertising for the alcohol industry is powerful, vigorous and effective. To balance that, it is vital that there should be a forceful, effective education policy to alert everyone, especially the young, to the dangers of unwise drinking. I had two goddaughters who died of alcohol harm, and my mother-in-law, who was an alcoholic, also died early. I spent many years working with young offenders and alcohol was one of the problems involved their lives. Alcohol causes so much violence and family stress.

Recently, university students have died after rugby initiation drinking games. It appeared that they did not know of the dangers associated with drinking large amounts of alcohol over a short period of time. There should be far more forceful warnings about the dangers of excessive alcohol consumption across the country if we want to save lives. I thank my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff for this report and I hope that the Government respond positively.

15:49

[The Lord Bishop of Carlisle [V]]

My Lords, I too congratulate the commission on its work in highlighting the harm caused by the abuse of alcohol. I wish to focus my brief remarks on the relationship between alcohol and domestic violence.

The statistics make this clear. Home Office figures indicate that alcohol is involved in up to 50% of cases of domestic abuse, as we were informed earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. Though not necessarily a direct cause, it is frequently a significant contributary factor. What is more, when alcohol is involved, the abuse affecting children, as well as adults, is more likely to be serious, increasing the risk of physical, emotional and psychological harm. This has, of course, been a particular problem during the last year with the various restrictions that have been imposed to counter the coronavirus pandemic. The commission’s findings on this, as well as several other types of harm, must surely cause Her Majesty’s Government to rethink the statement made in January 2020 that they

“are not planning a stand-alone strategy”—[Official Report, 21/1/20; col. 1043.]

for alcohol. It would complement, rather than cut across, proposals made in the NHS Long Term Plan.

The commission strongly recommends a strategic approach that would not only address the link between alcohol abuse and domestic violence but take into account some of the factors that frequently accompany harmful alcohol consumption. These factors include educational exclusion, social deprivation, financial distress, employment worries and psychological pressures. I wholeheartedly commend the commission’s proposal that the domestic abuse commissioner role, which is being created as part of the Domestic Abuse Bill, must have a duty to have regard to the link between alcohol and domestic abuse in its work.

15:51

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, introducing minimum unit pricing for England was a key recommendation of the commission. A strong evidence base for this was provided by a wide range of organisations, including the Children’s Society, the Association of Directors of Public Health, Cancer Research UK, the British Medical Association and several local authorities. A 50p minimum unit price in England has been estimated to lead to almost 22,000 fewer hospital admissions and 525 fewer deaths per year when in full effect. This would save the NHS £1.3 billion annually. As hospitals deal with the consequences of Covid-19, freeing up capacity is essential. People who live in poverty are more vulnerable to the effects of alcohol abuse. It is estimated that nine in 10 lives saved by minimum unit pricing would be from low-income groups. Yet the spokespeople for some business groups and right-wing organisations oppose minimum unit pricing, citing their previously rarely expressed concerns about poverty, when their real concerns are simply about profits. We need to remember that alcohol has a major impact on the public’s health.

Alcohol can cause over 200 conditions including cancer, heart disease, liver disease, stroke and mental health problems. When I asked a Question about this issue three years ago, the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, then the Health Minister, cited evidence that

“in 10 years, minimum unit pricing could on an annual basis reduce alcohol-related deaths by 356, alcohol-related hospital admissions by 28,515, and crime by 34,931 crimes.”—[Official Report, 28/2/18; col. 654.]

But we were told to wait for more evidence from Scotland and elsewhere. We now have that evidence. The policy is working in Scotland; it is being introduced in Wales. We should not have to wait any longer in England.

15:54

[Lord Smith of Hindhead (Con)]

My Lords, I add my thanks to those offered to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for initiating this debate. I refer the Committee to my interests as set out in the register.

I want to make just one quick point today: my belief that we need to be more careful about how we talk about the negatives of consuming alcohol and the need to be balanced in the advice given. Throughout this pandemic, we have seen the effects which lower socialisation has had on people’s health and mental health. I have always believed that a society which socialises together is stronger and healthier. Although alcohol does not have to be integral to a healthy social life, moderate alcohol consumption undoubtedly plays a large part in British culture and the social lives of many millions of people who enjoy pubs, clubs, bars, restaurants or indeed entertaining at home.

It is widely acknowledged that the comments made by the previous Chief Medical Officer, Dame Sally Davies, when she said that women should think about the risk of breast cancer every time they reach for a glass of wine, were misjudged. They were ultimately rebutted and reworded, but the horse had already bolted. Another, more recent example is from Drinkaware, which advised people getting their Covid-19 jabs not to drink in the two days before the jab and for up to two weeks afterwards. That advice then had to be dismissed by Ministers and the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, not least because not one study has tested any correlation between alcohol and the efficiency of either of the vaccines on offer in the UK today, a fact that even Drinkaware acknowledged.

Questions should be raised with Drinkaware about how this irresponsible advice could ever have been given, not least by the drinks industry, which for some reason continues to fund it. The problem caused by this type of nonsense advice is that it helps create a sense that all advice on alcohol consumption is nonsense. It undermines sound and sensible advice given by Governments and related health industries. Yes, of course overconsumption of alcohol is unhealthy, but our modern-day temperance movement needs to temper creating fear and to start acknowledging that most people have common sense and just enjoy a modest drink.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, has withdrawn, I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.

15:56

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, there is always a danger when addressing lifestyle choices that policymakers indulge in overreach. The relentless war on alcohol emanating from public health over recent years is no exemption. This can mean the state trampling on individual agency, a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, in yesterday’s Question on obesity. There is another danger when reports are commissioned to look at harms: that they see only harms and see harms everywhere. This can mean a disproportionate focus on risk and a loss of balance.

My concern about the direction of this report is that it moves away from the sometimes exaggerated health harms of individual alcohol use into the broader social and economic realms. In doing so, it may deploy guilt by association by linking alcohol and drinkers with reprehensible behaviours such as domestic abuse, family neglect, crime and child suicide and with a financial burden on public services. There is also the danger of conflating causation with correlation. This can mean that harms associated with a small minority are projected population-wide. Indeed, the proposed illiberal solutions, such as minimum pricing, treat everyone as a potential problem drinker and alcohol per se as a harmful substance.

Surely we need balance. Alcohol is a legal and enjoyable part of human engagement and relaxed sociability for millions of people. The direction of this report could disproportionately penalise and unfairly demonise the vast majority of those who drink responsibly.

Finally, can we remember the hospitality industry? With lockdown, some 10,000 pubs, clubs and restaurants were forced out of business in 2020. That awful loss of jobs and livelihoods looks set to continue. We have seen curfews and pubs open but with alcohol banned in Scotland and Wales. This smacks of a joyless puritanism. I appreciate that I am almost a lone voice here, but there is no democratic mandate for “Temperance UK”. Policy interventions should be targeted, discreet, and aware that alcohol can be harmful but usually is not, and that grown-ups should be free to choose how they use alcohol regardless of risks.

15:58

[Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]]

My Lords, alcohol harm requires a cross-departmental response because of the range of harms that alcohol can cause. That is why I support the call of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for a coherent, cross-government strategy.

The commission says, “It’s everywhere”, and it is. Drama can often explore complex issues in real life. The writers of Radio 4’s “The Archers” know that, hence their recent storyline about Alice’s struggles with alcoholism.

There are parallels with the obesity crisis, and there the Government have at last recognised that regulation has a part to play. The same goes for alcohol. We live in an obesogenic and alcogenic environment, and regulation can help. For example, people often do not know how much they are drinking or how strong a drink is. I have been asking for two decades for all alcohol to have its calories and alcohol units clearly labelled, but that still does not happen. I hope that will change now.

Services are thin on the ground. When police are called to an event of domestic violence, they should be able to link the perpetrator to therapeutic services and the children to social services. But this does not happen because the services are not there. This is crazy because, putting aside the human cost, money could be saved if they were. Are GPs and antenatal clinics confident to ask questions and refer people to alcohol services, where appropriate? Probably not.

Finally, the report says that, in Scotland, deprived groups are six times more likely to be admitted to acute hospitals and 13 times more likely to be admitted to psychiatric hospitals for alcohol problems than the least deprived groups. So the matter is often related to poverty. However, poor people can afford alcohol—because it seems to make things better; it is an escape from the misery of people’s lives. If we banish poverty, introduce minimum pricing and provide services, we can go a very long way to solving alcohol harms.

16:01

[Lord Ribeiro (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a fellow commissioner on the Commission on Alcohol Harm.

We are all too aware of the impact of alcohol on adults and the increase in liver disease and premature deaths as a result. But it is important to recognise that the genesis of this addiction to alcohol may start with the very young. Our focus should therefore be on the negative effects of alcohol advertising on children.

Professor Yvonne Kelly of the department of epidemiology and public health at UCL looked at social media and its impact on alcohol consumption in 6,700 British youngsters. Among 10 to 15 year-olds it was found that those who log on for one to three hours daily were 44% more likely to drink alcohol, while those who log on for more than four hours per day were 89% more likely to drink often. But those with no social media profile were 59% less likely to consume alcohol than those using social media, even those using it for less than one hour per day. Professor Kelly noted that

“the pattern…among 10 to15 year-olds in our study is particularly striking, given that the purchase of alcohol for this group is illegal, coupled with the potential problems associated with the introduction of alcohol from an earlier age.”

More must be done to protect children from alcohol promotion, including online and via sport sponsorship, as has been done successfully with tobacco advertising—a campaign that focused on the impact of smoking on children. We must now apply those lessons learned to alcohol. Will the Government take note of the WHO recommendation for the enforcement of comprehensive restrictions on alcohol marketing and apply them in the UK?

16:03

[Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]]

My Lords, for such an excellent report, two minutes will not do it justice. The commission report that we are debating does not pull its punches and I would have been disappointed if it did. “It’s everywhere”—walk through any town or city centre in the UK from midday onward and it is difficult to miss those sitting on benches, amiable but often addicted to alcohol, drinking their cheap booze, which is often cider. At just over £1 for a litre of a supermarket’s own brand, that is a cheap way to get drunk. For the most part, they make no trouble early on; later, they can become rowdy and, after closing, violent. Local authorities license outlets—pubs, corner shops and supermarkets. Is it really necessary to have five outlets within a three-minute walk for a town with a population of just over 9,000?

This all comes at a cost, but, for many, after time, there will be an impact on their friends and families. Addicts are not easy to live with and relationships suffer. Health suffers too. Service providers need to be aware that primary services for those dependent on alcohol need to be fairly close to places of work or home for those who need them. Funding for services for addicts is from local authorities. Can the Minister guarantee that local authority public health services will still be funded through the future health and social care Bill? To move addiction services to the NHS would be a retrograde step.

There is also a woeful lack of psychiatrists training in addiction psychiatry in England. Can the Minister confirm that there is a nationwide drive to attract trainees?

I realise that there is no instant fix, but how successful are the Government in encouraging young health professionals to train in these areas?

16:05

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thought I would read out all the recommendations very quickly. They are:

“1. A new comprehensive strategy… 2. Alcohol harm should be a specific part of the remit of the new Domestic Abuse Commissioner … 3. All professionals who have regular contact with children and families must have a core competency to intervene and provide support in cases where alcohol harm is evident … 4. Action to prevent, identify and support Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder … 5. Reduced price promotion of cheap alcohol through increased alcohol duty and minimum prices with regular reviews of prices in relation to inflation and income … 6. Restrictions on availability of retail alcohol through reduced hours of sale and reduced density of retail outlets … 7. Comprehensive restrictions on alcohol advertising across multiple media, including restrictions on sponsorships and activities targeting young people … 8. Alcohol labelling to provide consumers with information about alcohol harm … 9. Treatment and care for alcohol use disorders and co-occurring conditions … 10. Brief psychosocial interventions for people with hazardous and harmful alcohol use, with appropriate training for providers at all levels of healthcare … 11. Action to reduce drink driving”.


Almost every one of those has been mentioned in some way or other during this brief debate, so I hand them all over to the Minister, asking whether the Government agree with them. Will they enact them, and in what timeframe?

16:07

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)]

That is a tremendous challenge by the noble Baroness. I will do my best, but before I do, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on securing this important debate. I commend her on her commitment to reducing alcohol-related harm and I pay tribute to her and her team for spearheading the excellent report of the Commission on Alcohol Harm. I welcome the report’s recommendations and the opportunity to debate them. Before I make progress, I shall make a disclosure that my wife is a director of the company Diageo.

I acknowledge the report’s emphasis on wanting to change the conversation within society about alcohol and challenge alcohol’s position in our culture. Alcohol is not something which affects only the “weak” or “irresponsible”. It affects many people. We know that most people drink responsibly. I take on board the warnings of the noble Lord, Lord Smith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that we must be careful about overstating the specific dangers of alcohol or demonising those who drink responsibly. There is some good news in this area: we are seeing an overall decrease in the amount of people drinking, especially young people, which is highly encouraging. But we cannot avoid the fact that there are still those who drink at very harmful levels and where alcohol misuse leads to significant harms for the people involved and their families. I speak as one whose mother died of her alcoholism when I was of a young age, and I know from personal experience the huge impact that alcoholism has on those concerned and their families.

We recognise that there is still much work to be done. I completely agree with the rapporteurs that alcohol has large impacts on society that include costs to health, lost productivity and poor quality of life. Excessive alcohol consumption is the biggest risk factor attributable to early mortality, ill health and disability among 15 to 49-year olds in the UK—full stop. It is considered to be the third-largest lifestyle risk factor for preventable diseases in the UK, after smoking and obesity.

The Government are committed to supporting the most vulnerable at risk from alcohol misuse. We have an existing agenda on tackling health harms from alcohol, and I would like to touch on some of that today.

I completely hear the call of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for a new government alcohol strategy. The Government have committed to publishing a new UK-wide, cross-government addiction strategy. This will consider a range of issues, including drugs, alcohol and problem gambling and will involve many departments at the same time. While each comes with its own set of issues, there are large amounts of common ground and significant benefits in tackling addiction in a comprehensive and joined-up way. The scope of this addiction strategy is still being developed, so this debate is most timely as we consider what more can be done to protect people from alcohol-related harms.

On alcohol labelling, the Government completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that people have a right to accurate information and clear advice about alcohol and its health risks to help them to make informed choices. We have worked with the alcohol industry to ensure that alcohol labels reflect the UK Chief Medical Officer’s low-risk drinking guidelines. The industry has committed to complying with this requirement, and we are closely monitoring progress. As part of the Government’s latest obesity strategy, we committed to consulting on the introduction of mandatory calorie labelling on pre-packed alcohol and alcohol sold in the on-trade sector. This consultation will be launched this summer.

My noble friend Lady Jenkin raised the shocking statistic on alcohol-related violence, and I completely agree with her analysis. It is shocking to me that between 2016 and 2018 alcohol was a factor in 66% of violent incidents that took place in the street, pub or club and on public transport; this compares with 30% of violent incidents in the home. Between 2017 and 2019, one in five homicide suspects is recorded as being under the influence of alcohol at the time of the homicide, as is a similar proportion of victims. I have a deep wad of statistics that make extremely grim reading on this matter.

On the specific issue of domestic abuse, we are making progress. We know there is frequent co-existence of domestic abuse, mental health problems and the misuse of drugs and alcohol. Research indicates that in 34% of incidents of domestic violence, the victim perceived the offender to be under the influence of alcohol. The Domestic Abuse Bill will see better protections for victims and more effective measures to go after the perpetrators. We will reflect the importance of joining up domestic abuse, mental health and substance misuse services in the supporting statutory guidance. One action of this important Bill is to establish in law the office of the domestic abuse commissioner, with strong powers to tackle domestic abuse. The description of the commissioner’s role states that they must adopt a specific focus on the needs of victims from groups with particular needs, which could include mental health or substance misuse.

My noble friend Lord Ribeiro asked about restrictions on alcohol advertising. I remind him that there are already substantial restrictions on the advertising of alcohol, but we are working to review and improve them. The Government are working with industry to address concerns over irresponsible promotions, advertising and marketing relating to alcohol. Material in the Committee of Advertising Practice and Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice codes relating to the advertising and marketing of alcohol products is extremely robust already, recognising the social imperative of ensuring that alcohol advertising is responsible and, in particular, that children and young people are protected. None the less, the Government are reviewing how online advertising is regulated in the UK, taking into account the many serious points made by my noble friend Lord Ribeiro and looking at how well the current regime is equipped to tackle the challenges posed by the development of online advertising.

The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, spoke so movingly about children and family life. The evidence is absolutely clear that growing up in a family affected by parental alcohol dependency can cause significant harm to children’s well-being and their long-term outcomes. Thanks to the personal testimony and campaigning of many noble Lords in the Grand Committee today, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Work and Pensions have together invested £6.5 million on a package of measures, over three years, to improve outcomes and support for children whose parents are alcohol-dependent.

The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, asked pressingly on minimum unit pricing. There are no current plans to implement MUP in England. MUP has been in place in Scotland for less than three years and the Scottish Parliament will not consider its extension until April 2024, when much more will be known about the overall impact on consumption. We will continue to monitor the evidence as it emerges from Scotland and Wales. In the meantime, we are committed to reducing alcohol-related harm and so have already banned alcohol sales below the level of duty plus VAT. This means it will no longer be legal to sell a can of ordinary lager for less than 40p.

I close by reiterating the Government’s commitment to supporting the most vulnerable at risk from alcohol misuse. We already have a strong programme of work under way to address alcohol-related harms, and the new UK addiction strategy will provide an important opportunity to consider what more can be done. This activity will be informed by the best available evidence, including the report from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I thank her very much for pushing so hard on this important issue and securing such a thoughtful, interesting and passionate debate today, and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Grand Committee now stands adjourned until 4.30 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.

16:17

Sitting suspended.

Arrangement of Business

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Grand Committee

Announcement

16:30

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes. The time limit for this debate is one hour.

Covid-19: Poverty and Mass Evictions

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

16:30

Asked by

[Lord Bird]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the risk of mass evictions resulting from COVID-19-related poverty; and what steps they will take to prevent such evictions.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful for this chance to talk about something which has caused me a lot of sleepless nights. Thirty years ago, I started the Big Issue. In the past 30 years, including through the Covid period, we have been working with in the region of 7,000 to 9,000 homeless people a year. With some notable exceptions, they are people who were socially prepared, almost from birth, to fall into some kind of crisis. The most common thing among them—apart from the fact that a lot of them have depression, drug and drink problems, social problems such as the breakdown of relationships or come from the working poor, the long-term unemployed or broken homes—is that they did very badly at school. We have 7,000 to 9,000 people. It used to be a bit more in the days of Mr Cameron, but it seems to have gone down a bit, which is a good sign because I do not want one vendor of the Big Issue, to be quite honest. Those people have been socially prepared, and I mean that in the nicest sense of the word; I am not blaming anybody. I am just saying that if you meet them you know that their circumstances are often wretched but they come from wretchedness. Often their family are working poor and their grandparents were working poor and all that, so you could say they have been socially engineered to become the army of people who are homeless.

Last year, when in the region of 35,000 people were taken in from the streets it was wonderful—absolutely marvellous. It was enough to make you cry, and I say that with full sincerity. The way that the Government put their arms around homeless people was incredible. I have never known anybody do that in such a large and manifest way. The figures were that something like 3,000, 4,000 or 5,000 people were expected but it turned out to be nearer 35,000 people. If you look at the profile of where they come from, you can expect the result that could lead to the streets. As an ex-street person, I was socially prepared from a very early age. This does not mean that everybody born into poverty has to end up as a John Bird sleeping rough and in the prison system and all sorts of things like that, but a majority of people come from that profile.

Covid-19 has introduced us to a much more frightening reality. We have those people—quite a small number in the region of 50,000 to 60,000—who are rough sleepers throughout the United Kingdom but there are in the region of about 250,000 to 300,000 people who fall into what is called homelessness, whether they are sofa surfers, in hostels or temporary accommodation, with a small cohort to be found on the streets. So you could say that there is in the region of about 300,000. I am not one of those persons who is going to stick with any figures because I have heard contradictory figures from all sorts of people and organisations. If you believe some of the figures, you get up to nearly 300,000; if you believe another lot, you would think that it was 500,000. Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that you have socially prepared people who have failed at school and failed in many ways. They have all sorts of problems around drink and drugs—a cocktail of problems.

Covid-19 has thrown up a completely new group of people. If 2 million people are expected to lose their jobs—we know that the Government are trying to do wonderful things there—and a large amount of people fall into homelessness because of Covid-inspired evictions, you have a completely different group of people. In many senses, it will include middle-class and professional people—people who have had all sorts of support in their lives and should never have become homeless but for the problem of Covid-19. Now, not the socially prepared people—the people I come from; you could say that we kind of half expected it—but people who are not prepared, and whose families and children have fallen into depression, are in this group.

The Government’s response, especially in moving the goalposts, so to speak—that is, moving the eviction ban back to the end of May—has been a series of stopgap actions. We all know that we are in the middle of an emergency; we are not out of it yet. When working in an emergency and trying to move on, saying “We’re going to do this for a bit longer, we’re going to do that for a bit longer” actually undermines the well-being of the people who as yet have not manifested as homeless and presented themselves as such.

We will potentially have hundreds of thousands of homeless people. If we take the 400,000 people living in rented accommodation, not to mention the people who are behind with their mortgages and have had a number of mortgage holidays, and the nearly 400,000 people who are at least nine months behind in their rent—if they pay £1,000 a month, they are £9,000 behind —we could have hundreds of thousands people presenting themselves as Big Issue vendors. I certainly could not handle an enormous amount of people like that.

We have to move beyond the emergency. We have to have a road plan from the Government because it is unnerving people who are caught in this position. We also have to take account of the fact that 60% of people who live in rented accommodation are renting from people who have only one or two flats or houses, and letting is their pension or income. All the big landlords cover the other 40% but it is mainly backbone people in the community and all that.

Today, we have launched a campaign. We are making a film for the 30th anniversary of the Big Issue and it will be about this crisis. We hope the crisis does not happen, but we have to find a way of convincing the Treasury that, for all the money it has spent, if it does not spend money now on preventing people falling into homelessness, the cost could be anywhere between £20,000 and £100,000 per person who does. The cost to the National Health Service if we let hundreds of thousands of people slip into homelessness is untold. So, now is the time for the Government.

I and all the other people working in homelessness prevention will do whatever is necessary to help the Government through this sticky situation. I know, and everybody knows, this is not easy. We have to keep people in their homes, we have to pay their rent or mortgage and we have to support them through the emergency. The emergency might be over in three weeks, it might be over in three months, it might be over in three years, but we have no alternative. Otherwise, the cost will double and treble because it is sometimes four times more expensive to keep people in homelessness than to prevent it. That is what I am asking the Government to do.

I realise that a lot of people will say that we cannot dump this cost on the future generation. I was born in 1946, and I, with many of my contemporaries, finished paying for the Second World War in 2007. Let me tell noble Lords: this is very similar to the Second World War.

16:41

[Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bird, on securing the debate and on the uniquely powerful way he has introduced it. The Government will have a lot of help on hand to answer the first question the debate raises: the assessment of the risk of mass evictions. In all the statistics we have from the many agencies in the field, the Government point to the cliff edge, which has been postponed yet another month to the end of May. Much of what I say will build on what the noble Lord, Lord Bird, said.

The National Residential Landlords Association estimates there will be 800,000 people in arrears, the people the noble Lord described, who have never contemplated or imagined homelessness. They now face a real possibility of eviction for failure to pay rent. Fifty-eight percent of them have never had rent debt before, and almost one-fifth have debts of more than £1,000. Most at risk are the 11% of private renters who are now unemployed. As we know, Covid has hit the youngest hardest, taking their jobs and job prospects away. They will feel the full force of homelessness. The lucky ones will be able to retreat to the safety of the family home or squash in with friends, but there will be many who will not be able to do that.

It is significant that the NRLA has made common cause with housing charities. They have urged the Government to prepare a long-term strategy, rather than fight fires month to month. The NRLA estimates that about one-third of landlords will leave the market anyway or reduce their holdings. The Minister for Justice said on Monday in this House that it was nothing to do with him and that it is a housing problem. Of course, it is, but it sits urgently within a long-term structural problem of a failing housing market that can be solved only by making a priority of affordable and social housing. I am sure the Minister will tell us how much money has gone into supporting tenants and mortgages. Very well done, but it is absolutely the right thing for the Government to spend their money on.

The second exam question today is: what next? What is the long-term plan? What will it consist of? How will it address housing needs and costs and welfare benefits? When will it be announced? These are the answers the House of Commons Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee has asked for. It has asked for a strategic, resilient exit plan for the sector to transition out of the pandemic into stability and, specifically, for a modest financial package of discretionary housing payments of between £200 million and £300 million.

I therefore have a few questions for the Minister. When do the Government plan to respond to the Select Committee report and this proposition? When will the Government make a decision on the future of the £20 weekly uplift to child benefit? When will the Government bring forward their long-anticipated renters reform Bill? If the Government still do not know what to do, will they make a start by following the example of Wales and creating longer term security for tenants?

16:44

[Lord Shipley (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I should remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. This is the second time this week that we are debating this matter. On this occasion, it is an opportunity to discuss government policy approaches, or rather the absence of them, because just extending the temporary ban on evictions once again, as was agreed on Monday, is not sufficient, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for enabling us to keep pointing out the need for workable solutions from the Government.

The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, has drawn attention to the report of the House of Commons Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee, and I want to quote a little more from it. On 31 March, the Select Committee said that:

“The Government will eventually have to come up with a policy response, because it cannot keep extending the evictions ban forever more.”


It went on to say:

“We call on the Government to deliver a specific financial package —we prefer discretionary housing payments—to support tenants to repay rent arrears caused by covid-19, in consultation with the Local Government Association and appropriate bodies representing renters and landlords. We received an estimate that this package will likely cost between £200 and £300 million. Given the number of potential evictions this would prevent, it would likely save the Exchequer a substantial amount in homelessness assistance.”


What is the Government’s response?

The Resolution Foundation has estimated that the rates of rent arrears across all tenures were

“at least twice the level of arrears observed going into the crisis.”

It further estimated in January that more than 750,000 families were behind with their rent.

The Secretary of State committed a year ago that no one would be forced out of their home because they had lost income as a result of coronavirus. He also said that no landlord would face unmanageable debts. Landlords’ organisations and renters’ organisations have come up with a plan for a government-led rent relief scheme. The Select Committee has come up with a plan too. Many thousands of tenants and landlords are now extremely worried, so when will the Government decide what action to take?

16:47

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for initiating this short debate. He mentioned that it was 30 years ago that he launched the Big Issue. I was the Housing Minister at that time, which was the first time that I met the noble Lord, and it is a pleasure to join forces with him again this afternoon in the campaign to prevent homelessness.

This debate follows on closely from Monday’s debate on the prevention of eviction order, answered by my noble friend Lord Wolfson. When he replied to that debate, he very modestly said that he was a humble Justice Minister and that many issues raised were for MHCLG, hence the welcome opportunity to follow up those issues this afternoon.

I welcome the Government’s decision to extend the ban on most evictions in effect until mid-June, which aims to strike a balance between the needs of tenants and those of landlords. I also welcome the generous support that the Government have extended to renters: the LHA increase, the UC uplift, the one-off payment of £500 and the increase in discretionary housing payments. These will enable the majority of tenants to cope, with some forbearance from their landlords.

However, as noble Lords have said, when the temporary arrangements come to an end, there will be a problem. Of course, each time the Government for understandable reasons extend the eviction ban, the greater the amount of arrears that are likely to build up. This is a particular problem for the 56% of families with arrears who are not in receipt of benefits and therefore are precluded from discretionary housing payments.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, had some estimates. Roughly one-quarter of a million social tenants and the same number of private renters were estimated by the Resolution Foundation to be behind with their rent in February. This poses a particular problem for the courts, which are already under pressure due to the pandemic backlog, but much more important is the problem for families facing eviction.

I know that Scotland and Wales are different, but the problems that confront private tenants with Covid-related arrears are basically the same wherever they live. The Welsh scheme was launched last autumn. The tenancy saver loan scheme is repayable over five years with interest at 1% and is operated by credit unions. It is paid direct to the landlord, and is available only if the credit union believes it is affordable. Once tenants have applied for the loan, they can access support and advice services to help them manage their financial situation. It was welcomed by housing charities and landlord representatives alike. In Scotland, they have a very similar scheme, launched last September. Its tenant hardship loan fund offers interest-free loans to those unable to access other forms of support for their housing costs.

I know there is an argument for grants rather than loans. They are simpler to administer and avoid adding to debt, but they are more expensive for the taxpayer and unfair to those tenants who made sacrifices to pay their rent while their neighbour next door, who made no such sacrifice, may get a grant to wipe out the debt. Loans avoid that moral hazard. I do not expect the Minister to change government policy when he winds up, but will his department carry out a quick review of the Welsh and Scottish schemes to see whether there are any lessons which we might learn in England?

16:50

[Lord Loomba (CB) [V]]

My Lords, this is an important debate and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for securing it. The lockdowns and the shutdown of economic activities caused a loss of income for many workers and were especially difficult for those whose livelihoods depend upon daily wages. At the start of the March 2020 lockdown, the Government put in place a package of emergency housing measures to keep people safe in their homes during the pandemic. The Housing Secretary, Robert Jenrick, pledged

“no renter who has lost income due to coronavirus will be forced out of their home”.

Figures from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government indicate that rent arrears have tripled to affect almost 700,000 over the course of the pandemic. Hundreds of thousands of renters have fallen into rent arrears. Sadly, many of these people are widows and partners who have lost the breadwinner in the family as a result of Covid-19. They have no income and cannot afford to pay rent for their accommodation. Under the current regulations, evictions are paused but will resume from June onwards. Therefore, will the Government provide financial support to these women, who have lost their spouse or partner as a result of Covid-19 and have no source of income, to save them from being evicted from their homes? Furthermore, will the Government clear their debts built up during the pandemic? I am afraid that these vulnerable women will otherwise become not only homeless but the victims of many heinous crimes.

16:53

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the National Housing Federation, the trade body for housing associations in England. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bird, on securing a most timely debate.

The Government took speedy and decisive action to bring in the ban on evictions, introduce the universal credit uplift and deliver the “Everyone In” initiative. That was well done. This package undoubtedly saved lives and prevented people losing their homes and being plunged into poverty at this most difficult of times. The Minister knows that the worst impact of the pandemic has not been evenly distributed across our society. People on lower incomes have had higher contraction and mortality rates. Many of them have lost jobs or are stuck in precarious employment. Things for them have got worse in the past 12 months, and the future is not looking bright.

Research from the National Housing Federation shows that since the start of the crisis the number of social rented households in England claiming the housing element of universal credit has increased by 39%. In addition, around 60% of households that claim universal credit are in rent arrears. This picture is just for the housing association sector, which has put in place robust measures to support residents. For people in the private rented sector, the situation must be a lot bleaker.

Housing associations pledged from the start that no one would be evicted because of financial hardship caused by the pandemic. They set up schemes across the country to help residents get access to the vital financial support they needed through the welfare system. For example, Sovereign Housing, which operates in the south-east, has retrained 75 members of staff to help residents who are facing a drop in income. It has partnered with local businesses to help these residents find employment. Unfortunately, such initiatives alone will not be enough. Many families now stand on a cliff edge. What will prevent them falling off?

As the country’s economic and social recovery starts, we must not leave people who are already struggling even further behind. The eviction ban is, of course, not sustainable in perpetuity but I hope the Minister will acknowledge that we face a real and present danger of unravelling the complex support system that is keeping people’s heads above water. We must learn the lessons from this crisis—that a safe, affordable and decent home, with effective government support where needed, is the bedrock of a compassionate society.

With strong government action and leadership, we can prevent hundreds of thousands of people facing long-term financial hardship. Can the Minister commit to preventing those families falling off that cliff edge by keeping the support packages currently in place, including the £20 increase in universal credit? Can he also tell us what assessments his department and the Government have made of the implications of withdrawing this package for the housing situation of individuals and families?

16:56

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I was shocked to read that Citizens Advice had published a report which said that 58% of those who have now fallen behind on their rents were not in arrears before the Covid pandemic. Total arrears in January 2021 were estimated at £360 million. This has a knock-on effect on landlords, with 60% of them saying that they have lost income. Many are reliant on that rent as their only income. I declare my interests as set out in the register.

I have repeatedly welcomed the ban on evictions as introduced by this Government because it is of critical importance during such uncharted times that people retain their homes, as that gives them stability and confidence when they face such uncertainty. In the latest renewal of the protection from eviction regulations, I queried with the Minister whether 31 May 2021 was too early. I appreciate that there needs to be a balance for the landlords who are carrying the burden of non-payment of rent because they are not bankers and, in many cases, are suffering hardship themselves through non-payment of rent. However, I doubt that mass evictions will help either tenants or landlords.

Logic tells me that there needs to be further help or the courts will be bombarded with eviction hearings, while local authorities will find that they are forced to help rehome people who have lost their homes. In effect, the problem is merely being shifted to local councils, which will often be forced to used unsuitable temporary accommodation. Can the Minister outline what range of measures the Government are looking to introduce that will help meet the arrears, even if only in part, avoid the rush to the courts for evictions and help local authorities not to be swamped with homelessness cases? Without those measures, it is a bleak picture ahead for those in arrears.

There is emotional turmoil for tenants in losing their homes. The stresses and strains from being in rent arrears pale into insignificance when compared to the emotional breakdown of being evicted. To be able to seek local authority help, a tenant has to go through all the heart-wrenching court proceedings of being evicted in order to produce a court order to prove that they have been made homeless.

I know that myriad suggestions have been made—from loans to help meet arrears, to hardship grants by local authorities. While not ideal, perhaps there should be some form of wiping the slate clean arrangement, whereby landlords are provided with some compensation for rent arrears while keeping the tenant in place, thus avoiding mass evictions, with housing benefit to cover. I should add that the local housing allowance needs to be retained at the 30th percentile or increased.

I commend the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for bringing this debate to the Committee as I know that he has done much to help the long-term homeless and speaks from the heart in seeking to avoid yet more homelessness. His contribution to this House and on the street, particularly with the Big Issue magazine, has been enormous.

16:59

[Baroness Blower (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this short but important—and, indeed, urgent—debate secured by the noble Lord, Lord Bird. I am grateful to Generation Rent and Shelter for their excellent briefings, on which I will draw in my remarks.

The package of support put in the place by the Government in March 2020 was of course welcome, as the noble Lord, Lord Bird, said. It clearly helped to keep people safe. However, over the course of the pandemic, many have fallen through the net. Thousands of renters are now in arrears, private renters have been evicted illegally, and those with no recourse to public funds who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own have no safety net at all.

I believe there are five things that the Government could, and should, do. The first relates to benefits, which have been mentioned. The Government should remove the benefit cap, make the uplift in universal credit payments permanent and unfreeze the local housing allowance.

The second measure would be to put in place a funding package to help to clear rent arrears that have built up over the pandemic—the “wiping the slate clean” idea mentioned by the speaker immediately before me, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. Then, of course, the Government should urgently bring forward a renters’ reform Bill to end Section 21 no-fault evictions.

The third measure would be to suspend the no recourse to public funds condition, which has pushed many into homelessness and destitution. This condition should be suspended for at least the remaining period of the pandemic.

Fourthly, local councils must be funded to resource tenancy relations services. This would help to prevent unlawful evictions, which have continued to occur and remain at a high level.

Lastly, the Government should invest in a new generation of social housing to lift thousands out of homelessness and poverty into affordable, permanent homes.

In conclusion, it should go without saying that any premises offered for private rent should be, at the very least, fit for human habitation. It is a matter of utter shame that any private renter lives in premises that fall below that standard.

17:02

[Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]]

My Lords, during the Covid-19 pandemic, the eviction ban was an important measure that the Government were right to take as part of the national response to this public health emergency. We know that, without it, many thousands of people would have been evicted from their rental properties with nowhere to go. The ban was always a temporary measure that would inevitably come to an end, but this should not mean that, when it ends on 31 May, things should return to how they were before the pandemic.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for his introduction to this debate. He is a tireless campaigner on these issues. Evictions from rental properties are an issue of intergenerational fairness—a policy area in which he has been very active. I declare my interest in the register as chair of the Intergenerational Fairness Forum.

According to 2020 figures from the ONS, adults aged between 35 and 45 are three times more likely to rent and not own a home than they were 20 years ago. According to Generation Rent, the number of people in rent arrears has tripled since the start of the pandemic, with one in 10 renters now behind on their rental payments. With more than 700,000 eviction notices issued since March this year, we risk a real crisis once the eviction ban is lifted at the end of next month.

At the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Government took steps to find accommodation for all homeless people, but homelessness is something that we have grown to accept in recent years. The crisis of the past year has proved that we can house the homeless when there is political will. With the increase in remote working during the pandemic, we know that many office blocks will sit empty for the foreseeable future. Given both these points, it would be unacceptable for the number of homeless people to increase after the ban is lifted.

We also know that homelessness is not the only risk once the current eviction ban is lifted. Overcrowded and substandard living situations are a concern, especially as we continue to live through a public health emergency. We know that housing is a public health issue, and any increase in homelessness or in the number of people living in crowded and substandard accommodation will put at risk our actions to stop the spread of Covid-19. The evictions ban must inevitably come to an end, but it should not mean a return to how things were prior to the pandemic. We have an opportunity to rethink our housing policies and, specifically, our policies regarding rental accommodation. Let us do so as a matter of urgency.

17:05

[Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bird, in his unique way of introducing this debate, has drawn to our attention the fact that many of the invisible victims of the pandemic are private sector renters. They have been hit badly. They are twice as likely to have lost their jobs; they are twice as likely to have reduced income, and most of them have never been in serious arrears before. He was right that this could become a new phenomenon if we do not prevent some of these evictions.

The Government of course recognised the plight of these people and introduced a block on evictions, but they did not block the deeply anxiety-inducing process of notice that can eventually lead to eviction. Generation Rent estimates that nearly 700,000 Section 21 processes have been started over this last terrible year. That means that, when the protection ends, a potentially huge number of people will for the first time in their lives face homelessness.

Of course many of the solutions mentioned today are necessary. We will need to extend the ban on evictions beyond the end of next month and to provide legislation which changes the ease with which people can be evicted. We also need to address the problem of their short-term and long-term security through our social security system.

However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, hinted, there is also a longer-term problem here, and that reflects the colossal strategic failure of housing policy in general over the past few decades. We have reverted to a situation which existed at the beginning of the last century, when a large proportion of the lowest-paid, lowest-income families lived in private rented accommodation. With the lack of access to owner-occupation and the loss of so much council housing, this is likely to increase. Unfortunately, though there are very good landlords and very good institutional landlords, there are also serious problems in respect of small landlords who do not really have the resources to provide decent homes and decent accommodation for those several hundred thousand people. The landlords face a problem themselves, in that they are operating at the economic edge brought about by this pandemic.

Unless we see this issue as part of a longer-term problem, the short-term fixes will not help. We need to restore the security of tenure that proper social housing used to provide, yet we have cut the net number of council homes and the net amount of social housing and reduced access to it. We need to address the immediate problems, but also to reverse the direction of much of the development of the wider housing market—and to do so now.

17:09

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bird, on his moving opening speech, on securing this all-important debate and on his work during this pandemic, in particular the Ride Out Recession Alliance. As he rightly said, the greatest danger of homelessness is among people leaving the rented sector, particularly the private rented sector, but I align myself totally with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, about the all-important safety net of housing for social rent.

On Monday, in this very Room, we debated the latest piecemeal approach to evictions—or “stopgap actions”, as the noble Lord, Lord Bird, described them. While there is a stay on bailiffs enforcing evictions at present, it is the mere tip of the iceberg. According to Generation Rent, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, just said, around 700,000 people have received an eviction notice since March 2020. Can the Minister tell us what information he is using to ensure that only the most egregious cases are currently ending in eviction? When Tim Farron MP asked for a process, such as a register of evictions from landlords, he was told that that was not an option. Why not?

Gemma Marshall, who lives in the West Country, has recently been served with her second Section 21 in two years. She has an autistic son aged nine who struggles with change. She and hundreds of thousands like her have been forced to move during this pandemic. What advice does the Minister have for those tenants, and when will we see an end to this arbitrary eviction process?

Finally, arrears are now one of the most significant challenges for both tenants and landlords, as we heard from the noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick and Lady Gardner of Parkes, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. Citizens Advice tells us that it would take an average of seven years for the people who come to it to pay off their debts. They desperately need a financial package; I support the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, in asking for an investigation into the viability of the kind of packages that we have seen in Wales and Scotland. As the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said in reference to the Commons Select Committee, this modest financial package of between £200 million and £300 million pales into insignificance in comparison with the subsidy for home owners during this period. As the Resolution Foundation has pointed out, the majority of tenants now in arrears do not qualify for the current system of DHP support. By the way, on DHP, the £180 million has not been increased since the pandemic began.

We will hear some arguments about balance between landlords and tenants where the Government are somehow acting as the honest broker. I dispute that because, as the National Residential Landlords Association says, this Government are clearly breaking their promise that

“no renter who has lost income due to coronavirus will be forced out of their home.”

It is time to fulfil that promise and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bird, said, deliver a long-term plan.

17:12

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register. I add my thanks to those of other noble Lords to the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for securing this important debate. I also thank Generation Rent and the LGA for their excellent briefings.

Evictions are paused but will resume from June onwards. To prevent a spike in evictions from June, the Government must provide financial support for tenants who have lost income due to coronavirus and permanently end Section 21 no-fault evictions; the protections end on 31 May. Tenants with more than six months of rent arrears are not covered by the ban. This is despite Robert Jenrick’s pledge in March 2020 that

“no renter who has lost income due to coronavirus will be forced out of their home.”

Since the pandemic hit, rent arrears have tripled, which risks driving evictions. There is no doubt that the effect on household finances will exacerbate this further unless we see urgent action.

We came into this crisis with a staggering 253,000 people in England homeless and living in temporary accommodation. This includes almost 130,000 homeless children—almost double what it was in 2010. The truth is that, after a decade of this Government weakening the very foundations of our economy and eroding home security, at the start of the pandemic, way too many families were already on that precipice. The Government have not been nearly quick enough to confront the issue or respond to how the pandemic has exacerbated the threat of homelessness. The current ban on evictions is not working; loopholes mean that hundreds of people have already been evicted during lockdown.

I reiterate what some of my noble friends have already said in this debate. We need a Government who will end Section 21 no-fault evictions and update reporting mechanisms to provide a better picture of homelessness and rough sleeping across the country. They must end the debt crisis and bring forward the renters’ reform Bill to prevent a rise in evictions, together with raising the local housing allowance to cover median local rents; this would prevent shortfalls occurring and prevent debts building up. They should scrap the household benefit cap, ensure that families are able to access the higher LHA rates and create a Covid rent debt fund to clear tenants’ debts built up in the first wave of the pandemic. Before the pandemic, renters spent around a third of their income on rent; these arrears will take seven years to pay off.

The Government must introduce the renters’ reform Bill and permanently end no- fault evictions, as pledged in April 2019, to ensure that all renters have access to a stable and secure home. Without these measures, the Government’s promise that nobody will lose their home because of coronavirus is utterly meaningless. If we can do it in Wales, why can you not do it in England?

17:15

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for securing this important debate. I express my gratitude for his continued dedication in seeking to prevent homelessness, as well as for highlighting the risk of Covid-19-related poverty faced by our communities. The noble Lord was poignant in outlining the drivers of what causes people to sleep rough on our streets. I also thank noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions. I am glad to have the opportunity to update your Lordships on the Government’s assessment of the risk of mass evictions and our action to support renters.

The Government have taken unprecedented action to protect renters from eviction and homelessness during Covid-19. In March 2020, we introduced longer notice periods and worked with the judiciary to implement a six-month stay on possession proceedings. Legislation remains in place until 31 May to ensure that bailiffs do not serve eviction notices or enforce evictions, except in the most serious circumstances. Landlords are still required to provide six months’ notice, except in the most serious cases. This means that tenants served notice now will not have to leave their homes until October 2021.

To ensure that our measures are working, the Government have commissioned robust assessments on the risk of evictions resulting from the pandemic. For example, the English Housing Survey’s household resilience study was set up specifically to investigate household resilience in the light of Covid-19, with the wave 2 data published only yesterday. We do not consider that there will be mass evictions. The data continues to support this: the vast majority of private renters—91%–were up to date on their rent when surveyed in November and December last year. These figures are similar to the NRLA’s. The key is that these data also show that, of those in arrears, the vast majority have arrears of less than two months’ rent. In fact, the NRLA data also showed that, on average, the arrears were in the order of magnitude of £251 to £500, and that only 18% had rent arrears of more than £1,000.

We continue to encourage landlords and tenants to manage rent payment obligations sensibly so that they do not become an avoidable burden or cause avoidable disputes. We are grateful to landlords for their forbearance in supporting tenants during this time, and our interventions are preventing evictions. I know that some data has been presented by Generation Rent; we do not have official data, however. Ministry of Justice statistics show that reported applications to the courts for possession by private and social landlords between October and December 2020 were down 67% compared with the same quarter in 2019; and that only 548 repossessions were recorded between April and the end of December 2020, compared with 22,444 over the same period in 2019.

The Government are collecting, publishing and assessing robust statistics on homelessness, which include prevention and relief duties carried out under the Housing Act 1996. Statistics published today show that there has been a 40% decrease in households owed a homelessness duty due to the end of a privately rented tenancy, compared with the same quarter last year. The number of families in temporary accommodation is now at the lowest level it has been since 2016.

Overall, there has been a reduction in the number of people needing support from statutory homelessness services. This is driven by a reduction in the number of families threatened with homelessness as a result of the action that we have taken to protect renters. Our protections are working, and they strike the right balance between supporting tenants and landlords. They provide assurance to tenants but also support landlords to progress the most egregious cases, such as anti-social behaviour, more quickly.

The noble Lords, Lord Bird and Lord Shipley, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and my noble friend Lord Young all want to know: what next? As we move along our road map to recovery, we are considering the best way to transition out of these emergency measures, taking into account public health advice, and we will provide more detail shortly. The noble Lord, Lord Bird, has rightly raised the financial pressures faced by tenants during the pandemic, highlighted by the Big Issue’s Ride Out Recession Alliance campaign. I am heartened by the shared commitment that we all have to preventing such hardships wherever possible.

To this end, the Government have supported workers so that they remain in employment, with the job retention scheme extended until the end of September. The Government have also provided billions of pounds in welfare support to help people pay their housing costs. This included £1 billion to increase local housing allowance rates last year, so that they cover the lowest 30% of market rents, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Young. These rates are being maintained in cash terms throughout the current financial year until 2022, meaning that claimants renting in the private rented sector will continue to benefit from the increase.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, I say that the Government have also extended the £20 a week uplift in universal credit until the end of September and provided a one-off payment of £500 to eligible working tax credit claimants. For those who require additional support, the discretionary housing payments are available. We have made £140 million of funding for discretionary housing payments available to local authorities this financial year to support renters with housing costs in the private and social rented sectors. This builds on the £180 million available in the last financial year.

For those who become homeless or find themselves at risk of homelessness, we are providing local authorities with £310 million through the homelessness prevention grant. This funding represents a £47 million increase on the previous year’s funding and can be used to offer financial support for people to find a new home, to work with landlords to prevent evictions, or to provide temporary accommodation to ensure families have a roof over their head.

Looking to the future, and when the urgencies of the pandemic have passed, the Government are committed to introducing reforms to deliver a fairer and more effective rental market. This will be achieved by legislating to remove Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988—as we have pledged as a Government and as the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, mentioned—to provide tenants with more security, but also to strengthen the grounds for eviction to ensure that landlords have confidence that they can gain possession when it is fair to do so. This will represent a generational change to tenancy law in England, so it is only right that such legislation is balanced and properly considered to achieve the right outcomes for the rented sector.

May I refer to some of the specific points that have been raised this evening by noble Lords? The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, mentioned the HCLG Select Committee report. All I can say is that we will respond in due course to the committee’s report on Protecting the Homeless and the Private Rented Sector: MHCLG’s Response to Covid-19; I am afraid I have no news on that.

I thank my noble friend Lord Young for raising what we can learn from Wales and Scotland, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. I will encourage my officials to look at what we can learn from the devolved Administrations, though I would say that there is a choice around whether it is right to offer loans, which in effect provide additional debt for an individual, as opposed to what we have tended to prefer, which is to widen our financial support. There is a choice and you cannot necessarily do both, but we will look at that in some detail.

The noble Lord, Lord Loomba, my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, all raised various forms of direct financial support measures to pay rent arrears, which is not currently government policy. I do not propose to introduce government policy in this debate, but I have to say that everybody who they mentioned is eligible for the support that I have outlined—it is open to them.

With regard to no recourse to public funds, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, the rules have not changed. Eligibility is determined by local authorities, which have to use their judgment in assessing what support they may lawfully give to each person on an individual basis. We do not propose to change that at this point.

I assure noble Lords that the Government will continue to support renters affected by the pandemic. The measures that I have highlighted are in addition to existing commitments to deliver a fairer and more effective rental market for all. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for raising this important matter on the 30th anniversary of the founding of the Big Issue, which he can rightly be proud of, and I extend my thanks to the considerable number of noble Lords who have participated in this debate.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Grand Committee now stands adjourned until 5.30 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.

17:26

Sitting suspended.

Arrangement of Business

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Grand Committee

Announcement

17:30

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes. The time limit for this debate is one hour.

Biodiversity Emergency

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

17:31

Asked by

[Lord Teverson]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to declare a biodiversity emergency.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership. One thing that I cannot take any credit for is the fact that this debate has landed up on Earth Day, which is incredibly useful and quite appropriate because it is about is one of the crises of our planet. The Question is straightforward: what are the Government doing about declaring an emergency on biodiversity? I am going to give the reasons why they should do just that.

First, obviously, it is because there is an emergency. We often think about this as a global issue. One may be away from the shores of the United Kingdom, particularly if regarding the rainforests of South America, large mammals such as tigers, or coral reefs and coastal mangroves. There is a crisis throughout the globe but it is equally so here in the United Kingdom. If we look at the various reports there have been around the state of nature, we will have seen that some 40% of species are in decline, 15% are under threat of extinction and, the one that struck me most, there has been a 13% fall in the abundance of nature since 1970. I can remember that year and since then our volume of nature has declined by over 10%—by 6 % in the past six years.

What also struck me in a report that came out earlier this week from the Woodland Trust was the great news that forest cover in the UK had doubled since the beginning of the last century. That is taken away from by the fact that only 7% of that forest and woodland is in good order and, even there, biodiversity has greatly declined. Of the 20 Aichi targets adopted back in 2010 at the Convention on Biological Diversity in Japan, the UK missed 14 of them. NGOs would suggest that we met only one. Globally, none of those targets were met, sadly, but that decline in nature is continuing. That is why we have an emergency on this planet and in this country.

The second reason why we need an emergency to be declared is because biodiversity is vital. Those many services provided by nature, often called ecosystem services—I was trying to avoid saying that during this debate because the world outside would look blankly at me—include genetic pool, pollination, soil fertility, clean air and water, the food chain, protection against disease and protection against pests. Indeed, we have found over the past year, so important during the Covid-19 emergency, that there is a help to the mental health and well-being of human beings. Without those ecosystem services, mankind will not survive.

My third reason for an ecological and biodiversity emergency is that the world outside this building has to notice it. At the moment, there is little recognition or understanding of it outside. If we compare it to climate change, it has taken perhaps two decades for the world, and the wider population of its citizens, to understand that challenge. Part of that has meant that it has overshadowed biodiversity. My opinion is that it is an emergency and we have to declare it, because we have to say that it is important and the rest of the world has to notice.

My fourth reason for declaring an emergency is that it needs to drive government policy. We have seen how this is working well, and I give credit to the Government today on climate change, our various objectives and targets and the way they are supposed to guide the action of all ministries and departments. We need that similar drive for biodiversity. At the moment, it seems to be only Defra that takes an interest. I give the Treasury all credit for the Dasgupta report, but it does not seem to have been particularly excited by it. I hope to be proven wrong when we finally get a response to it from the Treasury.

My fifth reason for an emergency is that this is much more complex than climate change. I could put my tongue in my cheek and say that climate change is dead simple because all we have to do is reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We can measure them, and we know all the solutions. The only problem is doing the road map to get there. Climate change is straightforward but biodiversity is much more difficult. We do not know all the answers, we certainly find it difficult to find suitable measures and metrics to follow and, even if we know them, to measure them is also difficult. It is complex and we need to concentrate far more on it.

My sixth reason is that it is the twin of climate change. They are both emergencies; one cannot be solved without the other. We cannot solve biodiversity challenges without climate change action—and without climate change action, biodiversity will continue to decline. We have that common agenda on, in particular, nature-based solutions and carbon sequestration. They work together and we cannot have one without the other.

What is my seventh reason? I have only three more to go. My seventh is that it needs a global champion, to be frank, and the UK could and should take on that role. We have the biodiversity conference—COP 15—at Kunming in China, now happening in October. This is the big opportunity for the United Kingdom to take a lead globally, give real profile and exercise the other powers that are coming to that conference so much more. At the moment, all the targets of the big conference back in 2010 have not been met.

Eighthly, it is the right time. Covid-19 and the crisis showed us so well how when people need to get out and enjoy the outside when it is so restricted nature and biodiversity are important to them. That is recognised much more now than it has been in the past. We need to build back better, and part of that needs to be through the biodiversity emergency. I believe we would have far more public backing than ever before. The time is ripe now.

Lastly, now is the right time for an emergency. It should be declared because we have the opportunity to do so in the Environment Bill. We have waited a long time for that Bill to come to this House. That Bill could become even more credible when it becomes an Act if a biodiversity emergency was declared as part of it.

Those are my reasons. This is a true emergency and something that Britain could lead on if it wishes to, and it should. Will the Minister say who will represent the British Government at the Kunming conference? More importantly, will he ensure that now or, as the Environment Bill becomes an Act, we as the United Kingdom will declare a biodiversity emergency?

17:39

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interests as chairman of the Woodland Trust and president or vice-president of a number of environmental charities.

As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, the biodiversity emergency is a real threat to our economy, our ability to meet climate change targets and our very survival globally. The Woodland Trust’s recent report, State of the UK’s Woods and Trees 2021, is a startling indictment of the perilous state of our native woodlands and their biodiversity. As the noble Lord said, despite increasing tree cover over the past 100 years, only 7% of our native woodlands are in good ecological condition and woodland wildlife species are in steep decline.

Defra’s 2020 biodiversity indicators report for England shows a chilling wider picture of decline: farmland and wetland birds are declining and the percentage of water bodies in good ecological condition is declining, to name but a few. The only things that are increasing are invasive non-native species and the rate of importation of plants and trees from abroad—both of which are bad—so it is official: there is a biodiversity emergency here in the UK.

If the UK is to show that strong international leadership that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, talked about, it has to be exemplary here at home. It must start in the Environment Bill with those legally binding biodiversity targets. The soon-to-be-published English tree action plan must be bold and ambitious in tackling the challenges outlined in the State of the UK’s Woods and Trees report, including by creating incentives for effective woodland management. Investment in the UK and Ireland saw the UK and Ireland sourced and grown assurance scheme, the expansion of UK tree nurseries for safe trees and legislation, at long last, for statutory protection for ancient woodland. This is an emergency.

17:41

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, for biodiversity to be diverse and flourish in the UK, it needs habitat, species protection where appropriate, the provision of winter food for birds and animals and sensible predator control. Given all the protection and proscription that we have enacted over many years for habitats and species, one must ask why biodiversity is still in decline. Clearly our policy has failed. We are not good at providing winter food due to farming methods and efficient modern farm machinery. Hopefully ELMS will help with that. More importantly, we are increasingly bad at management, including sensible and humane predator control.

Mankind has changed the environment in which all species live. There has been the removal of apex predators, the introduction of alien species, the loss, degradation and fragmentation of habitats and pollution. Nature will always find a balance but, often, it is not the balance that we want and leads to a reduction in biodiversity, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said.

Take, for example, Auchnerran farm in Aberdeenshire, owned by the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust and managed for biodiversity. This year alone, two-thirds of the lapwing nests have already been destroyed by badgers. This is a property that is farmed for biodiversity. Similarly, at the trust’s property in Allerton, Leicestershire, there have been no hedgehogs for seven years and no waders for 10 years because of predators.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young, mentioned trees. Of course, trees are suffering hugely from a deer problem. Deer are notorious browsers and are bad for coppicing. They reduce the understory, which is bad for nightingales, primroses, primulas, nesting birds, butterflies and other species. Of course, it suffers from grey squirrels too.

We have a severe problem, not an emergency, but we can solve that problem if we and the Government get our policies right.

17:44

[The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]]

My Lords, happy Earth Day. Many thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for securing this important debate.

As a land manager responsible for biodiversity in a small part of Devon, I am interested to know what the declaration of a biodiversity emergency entails. What is the geographical extent of this emergency? Should we declare a global emergency or a UK emergency or, as environmental policy is devolved, should we consider only England? Given that we have competence over only England and our overseas territories, should that not be the limit of our ambition? To pronounce wider and beyond our jurisdiction smacks of imperial overreach.

Secondly, what are the implications of such a declaration? What impact would it have on policy? Given the huge upheavals under way in agriculture and environmental land management, yet further changes could be confusing and mix up the message.

Thirdly, by what metrics is this emergency to be assessed? Is there a common standard that the Government would apply? Speaking from personal experience only, I am not convinced that 2021 constitutes such a biodiversity emergency in England.

To some embarrassment, I grew up with middle name Peregrine. I remember being given a painting of a peregrine as a child and being told that it was the only likelihood of me ever seeing the bird as they did not exist in southern England. Now we see them regularly off the red cliffs of Dawlish. Similarly, we now see ravens, goshawks and egrets, which were never present in my youth. I vividly recall camping out at night to see a rare badger in the woods. Now, dead badgers litter the roadside and the hedgehogs have gone. We have a hedgerow at home that was about the only place in England to see the Jersey tiger moth in the 1980s. Now, they are common across the south-west. Finally, as we have heard, on a macro scale, we have seen considerable reforestation of our country since the nadir of the First World War, albeit that much of it is admittedly coniferous monoculture.

The point I seek to make is that, on many metrics, through responsible land management, biodiversity has increased in recent decades while continuing to provide cheaper food to an ever-expanding population. The declaration of a biodiversity emergency now might ignore that important work.

17:46

[Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for initiating this debate. We are in the midst of a sixth mass extinction, the only one caused solely by mankind. Since 1970, the worldwide human population has doubled, yet at the same time species have been wiped out faster than ever. What is this Government’s policy on population?

Up to one million species, plant and animal, are at risk of extinction due to human activities. David Attenborough is right when he says that we are the invaders affecting plants, animals, insects, oceans and ecosystems all over the planet. Half of our pollinators are in decline, and that is a real threat to food supply. If apple tree blossom is not visited by bees or other pollinators, there will be no apples. That is why it is vital to make biodiversity a priority of our lifetimes.

We know that well-planned and generously funded conservation and restoration projects work. I ask the Government to work with other countries where endangered animals and plants exist. Pangolins—beautiful, gentle creatures—are under threat because some idiots think their scales contain health-giving properties. These same people think the same about rhino horn, which is made of the same substance as human toenails. Let them set up a toenail industry and leave our rhinos alone. More than half of people in some Far Eastern countries think that ivory is a mineral rather than the teeth of living, sentient, intelligent animals, now poached in such numbers that elephant deaths exceed births. It is our duty to make amends for the generations of mankind who, often through ignorance, have exploited and persecuted wildlife and ravaged landscapes to destruction.

Extinction is permanent. Once a species is lost, it is lost for ever. Let us not lose any more.

17:48

[Lord Lucas (Con) [V]]

My Lords, if we are to make a difference to the trend in biodiversity, we need to make a difference to all our children. We need interest in biodiversity, familiarity with biodiversity and the value of biodiversity to be things that our children grow up with. At the moment, they are leading much more restricted lives than we did—certainly, very much more restricted lives than our parents did—in their ability to interact with nature and to get a real understanding and appreciation of what nature is and what humans can get from a relationship with it.

At the moment, there is a proposal from OCR for a natural history GCSE that has been in the DfE’s inbox for about six months. I know that the DfE is busy, but everybody in this climate and biodiversity emergency has to make their contribution. I hope my noble friend will be able, at some quiet moment, to emphasise to his colleagues in the Department for Education that it matters that they do their bit too, that they let this GCSE through and let us start the process of getting children back in touch with nature. That is where, over the long term, we can make a difference to this. If we all live in cities with our backs turned to nature, we are never going to want to spend the money and time that will make the difference.

17:50

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]]

My Lords, happy Earth Day. Well done to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for getting this debate. We have passed legislation in the past year at the most incredible rate; a year ago, we would have said that it was impossible, unconstitutional or just plain ridiculous. Parliament and the Government have shown that they can act fast in an emergency. Covid has been an interesting case study, because it shows how fast we can move. We have declared a climate emergency, and it is self-evident that an ecological and biodiversity emergency is ravaging the world. We have to act on that as well.

This Queen’s Speech, I believe, is the fourth time that the Queen will read out that we are going to have an Environment Bill. That shows the lack of urgency in the Government’s response, which is a real problem. When we compare it with the speed, volume and sheer intrusiveness of the dozens of pieces of Covid legislation that have passed in the last year, it reaches a point of embarrassment. However, I know that the Minister understands the problem as well as I do and possibly better. I would like to know how much longer the Government will let the emergency roll on before they finally respond.

Targets are great, and I welcome better and higher targets, but they are not met without a plan. It is not enough to talk. We must act. The Dasgupta Review and the Climate Change Committee’s sixth carbon budget have given us a pathway to doing exactly that—to declaring a biodiversity and climate emergency, acting on it and reducing our impact on the natural world. Plus, of course, there is the Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill, which was introduced by Caroline Lucas MP in the other place last year. That offers the UK an unparalleled opportunity to provide much-needed global leadership. I very much hope that the Government will take those options and make life better for all of us.

17:52

[Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill annual risk report for 2020 ranks biodiversity loss as the third most impactful risk facing the global economy and the fourth most likely to actually occur. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services estimates that between $235 billion and $577 billion in annual global crop output is at risk as a result of pollinator loss. Bee populations are declining because of pesticide use, habitat degradation and reduction, global warming, agricultural practices and a lack of floral diversity. A recent red list showed that out of a total of 1,101 species of bee in the EU, about 15% are threatened with extinction or near-extinction.

The Government need a joined-up approach to dealing with the impact of biodiversity loss. Section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 requires directors to promote biodiversity. Business performance measurement models are distorted by a focus on shareholder wealth maximisation and environmental degradation and neglect of biodiversity by companies. This neglect is further perpetuated by the Government’s current consultation paper on corporate governance reforms, which clings to a shareholder-centric model of corporate governance.

A first step for dealing with the challenges is for the Government to promote a stakeholder model of corporate governance so that diverse voices are empowered. Hopefully, the Minister will give us that commitment in his response.

17:55

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I declare interests as a retired farmer, a landowner and chair of the UKCEH.

We do have a crisis. We have made a total Horlicks of this issue over recent years. It will take decades to put it right. It will not be easy. However, we have to step back. These days, good land managers provide many outputs and services: food to keep us healthy and our nation secure; landscape and access for tourism and healthy exercise; renewable energy; buildings for rural businesses; timber for carbon capture and storage, and for buildings; and, yes, habitats and wildlife management for the biodiversity that we desperately need. In doing all this, we have to minimise our carbon footprint.

It is a tough call to maximise the services from your piece of land and still stay in business, but we must never again prioritise one output at the expense of all the others, which is what we have been doing. We must get everything in perspective and take a balanced view of what the land can produce. Every piece of land will have its own solutions. We will need to carry out research as well as prod, train and incentivise all land managers, both urban and rural.

On our Somerset farm, we have a 50-acre solar park. Some 10 years in, our FWAG officer visited the site and said that he had rarely seen 50 acres with more biodiversity, with every kind of insect and butterfly, voles, field mice, hares, barn owls, kestrels, partridge, plovers and even hen harriers. My point is that land can be multi-purpose. However, we need the research, training and incentives to maximise the possible outputs on all our land.

17:57

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Teverson on securing this debate on Earth Day. I want to talk about earth, but the sort of earth that is under our feet: the soil.

A healthy soil is full of living things, including microbes, bacteria, amoebas, mycelium and invertebrates. I remember the late Lord Peter Melchett, a great champion of the soil, talking about the soil food chain and saying that moles are to the soil what lions are to the Serengeti. Given that soil is so much the base for a healthy ecosystem, has the situation improved with regard to the number of academics working on soil? If we are to have environmental land management, we will need people to analyse, measure and make sure that the targets and remedies are correct. In 2017, when I asked the Government about the number of soil scientists, there were just five professors in the whole of the UK working on soil science and 25 academic staff in total. Can the Minister tell me what the situation is now? We will need to assess the biology of the soil. If there are so few experts, who is to do so?

Those advising farmers and selling products to them—agronomists and agricultural product retailers—are good on chemical analysis and telling whether the soil is compacted, but they are not so good on soil biology. If we are to transform our terrestrial biodiversity, we must be able to recognise that good soil, in all its richness, is a food source to those higher up the food chain as well as a means of producing food for ourselves.

17:59

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, regardless of whether there is a biodiversity emergency, there is a crisis of nature. We are seeing species disappearing, even in our own land. We need to keep species under constant review and achieve a balance in the ecosystem. Badgers, bats and grey squirrels need to be kept under control, and other species that are dwindling need to be promoted.

In responding to the debate today, will my noble friend the Minister give a guarantee that farmers will be given a role to play in nurturing wildlife, flora and fauna, in particular through the environmental land management scheme that other noble Lords have spoken about, but with a proviso that tenant farmers will be enabled to benefit? Farmers, and tenants in particular, understand that they are close to nature and best placed to promote and nurture it.

Turning to marine life, will my noble friend give a further assurance that the biodiversity of our marine environment, in particular of the North Sea, will not be substantially damaged by the building of offshore wind farms? We are effectively seeking an urbanisation of the sea through offshore renewables, raising issues of energy generation at sea. We need to take every opportunity to ensure that our sea and marine life—including mammals such as dolphins, porpoises and others—are protected. I hope he will agree that it is for the industry which benefits from this form of energy generation to contribute to the research on how to protect our marine life going forward.

18:01

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on submitting this Question on the biodiversity emergency for debate today. Like him, I believe that the climate emergency is the twin of biodiversity and that there is a symbiotic relationship between them, because one has an impact on the other. They cannot be addressed in isolation and require urgent and immediate attention.

Every Government, every business, every organisation and every individual must play a part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions; assisting in the adaptation to climate change; halting biodiversity loss; and restoring habitats and species through changes in laws and regulations, policies, behaviours and lifestyles at local and national levels. In my own local area, there is one company doing that through one individual at True Harvest Seeds, which is looking to ensure that the local, indigenous seeds of the island of Ireland are protected and allowed to germinate. It is trying to deal with a lot of the invasive species that are destroying our local biodiversity.

This is an extensive subject and I hope that the Environment Bill will give the Government the opportunity to deal with biodiversity loss and the biodiversity emergency. I would very much like to see the Minister give us answers today about the future content of the Environment Bill. Can he also indicate what actions will be taken to ensure that the national infrastructure bank is pivotal in facilitating the financing of nature restoration and nature-based solutions to climate change?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)]

I call the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. Lord Bradshaw? No. I regret that we will have to go on then. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch.

18:03

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for tabling this timely and important debate. As has been said, it fittingly coincides with Earth Day, when global citizens are taking a stand right across our world on the climate and biodiversity emergency.

Today, noble Lords have provided a depressing indictment of the Government’s record on biodiversity. We are now more aware than ever of the fragility of our own ecosystems. By their own admission, the Government are failing to meet two-thirds of the biodiversity targets agreed at the Convention on Biological Diversity in 2010, while 41% of our species are in decline and 10% face extinction. But here in the Lords, we have a real opportunity not just to talk about biodiversity but to act upon it.

Amendments to the forthcoming Environment Bill could allow us to introduce legally binding targets to halt and reverse declines in nature by 2030. The Bill could allow us to set meaningful baselines against which progress could be measured but also enforced. It could enable us to determine that biodiversity net gain should be a fundamental principle running through all future government investment, without exception. It would enable us also to put the biodiversity crisis on an equal footing to the climate crisis, recognising that action and resources on both are necessary to deliver a sustainable planet.

If we take these actions now, and provide the resources to make them happen, we can go to the CBD in China later this year with credibility to ask others to follow our lead and deliver a radical global programme for action. I hope that the Minister can confirm that he is indeed ready to deliver a more radical version of the Environment Bill which can reverse the decline in nature and produce bold new targets and deliverables by 2030. I look forward to his response.

18:05

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Teverson for securing this debate and for his passionate introduction. I am currently reading James Rebanks’s book, English Pastoral: An Inheritance. The Rebanks family have farmed in Cumbria for over 600 years. His latest book details the massive change in farming practices and the devasting effect that such change has had on biodiversity. The removal of stone walls, destruction of ancient hedgerows and accelerated use of chemical fertilisers and weedkillers have all taken their toll on plants, insects and birds.

The Government have produced numerous plans to remedy the loss of biodiversity. In 2011, Defra produced a strategic plan for England, Biodiversity 2020. An evaluation in 2019 showed insufficient progress against its targets. In January 2018, the 25-year environment plan appeared. December 2020 saw the development of a new strategy for nature to replace Biodiversity 2020. The Environment Bill’s First Reading in the Commons was in January 2020; it will eventually arrive here. In March 2021, the Prime Minister said that tackling climate change and biodiversity would be his number one international priority. For all this rhetoric, there has been no actual progress.

The Woodland Trust has produced a report on the state of our woods and trees which finds that only 7% are in a good ecological condition. However, some local authorities have risen to the challenge. Bristol City Council has declared an ecological emergency and has a plan to redress the decline by 2030. We hope that others will follow suit.

It is estimated that 75% of the world’s land surface and 66% of the ocean has been significantly altered and degraded by human activity. One million species are threatened with extinction. Are we going to wait until we, as humans, are also threatened with extinction before we take this matter seriously? Will the Minister press the Government to declare a biodiversity emergency now and take stringent action?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, we have been able to reconnect with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, whom I therefore call.

18:08

[Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]]

Thank you, Lord Chairman. I wanted to say that all of us, I think, are members of the National Trust, wildlife trusts, national trails, the CPRE or the RHS. I implore of the Minister that, whatever new arrangements are brought into being in the Environment Bill, the huge army of volunteers in all those organisations can be empowered. This needs some money and some professional leadership, but if that is provided, a lot more work will be done, much of it to restore biodiversity.

The other subject that I wanted to raise, of which I gave notice, is the horticultural use of peat, about which I am still extremely worried. I have raised this with the Minister before. I am anxious for there to be a goal of stopping the use of peat for horticultural purposes. It is not good practice, but it is very expensive at the moment to use anything else.

18:10

[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, I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to this hugely important debate.

It should not need to be said, but we cannot reasonably expect to be able to destroy the natural world in the manner that we are without paying a terrible price. There is no doubt that that is what we are doing. I will not rehearse all the facts and figures of destruction, as noble Lords will be depressingly familiar with many of them, but it is worth reminding ourselves that we are currently losing around 30 football pitches-worth of forest every single minute; that a million species face extinction, including two in every five of the world’s plants; that the grim illegal wildlife trade is now the fourth biggest criminal sector; and that, just as we are stripping the ocean of life at a terrifying rate, we are filling it with trash just as quickly. And all this against the backdrop of an increasingly destabilised climate.

There is an abundance of science telling us that we are heading for disaster. But you do not need to be a scientist to understand that these trends cannot continue without appalling consequences. When ecosystems fail, so too do the multitude of free but hopelessly undervalued services that nature provides—services that each and every one of us depends on. Turning this trajectory around is, without a doubt, the most important challenge that we face by far.

To some extent, that is already happening in relation to the low-carbon revolution. The cost of renewables has tumbled, and zero-emission vehicles are on the cusp of going mainstream. Who would have predicted that the cost of solar would fall by 90% in the 12 years since the banking crisis? To be clear, I am not suggesting complacency: we are asking every country in the world to ramp things up as we head towards COP 26. When it comes to attaching a value to nature and a cost to its destruction, we have barely left the starting blocks, and that has to change because technology alone will not save us.

To put it simply: there is no pathway to tackling climate change that does not involve protecting and conserving nature on a massive scale. Nature-based solutions, like trees and mangroves, could provide a third of the most cost-effective solutions we need to mitigate climate change, as well as helping species recover and helping communities to adapt to become more resilient to the impacts of climate change. But despite that huge contribution, nature-based solutions currently receive less than 3% of total global climate finance. That makes no sense.

It is right that we in this country have put nature at the heart of our response to climate change, domestically and internationally, through our presidencies of both the G7 and COP 26. We are leading by example. Very soon after entering Downing Street, the Prime Minister committed to doubling our international climate finance to £11.6 billion. More recently, just a few weeks ago, he committed to spending nearly a third of that—around £3 billion—on nature-based solutions to climate change. We are encouraging other donor countries to do similarly. On the back of that commitment, we are rolling out a pipeline of ambitious new programmes. There is a new £500 million blue planet fund, for example, which will help to protect fragile marine ecosystems, and we are growing our magnificent “blue belt” of marine-protected areas around our overseas territories, which now cover a protected area the size of India. There is a new £100 million landscapes fund to link threatened ecosystems, providing safe passage for wildlife and green jobs for people. We are trebling funding for our extraordinary Darwin Initiative to £90 million. With other donor countries, we are developing right now an offer for forest protection that exceeds anything that we have seen so far.

We are also investing £30 million to protect species from the grim illegal wildlife trade, which I hope reassures the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Cheltenham, who made this point very clearly. I share his concern about pangolins and was delighted—as I am sure he was—when the Chinese decreed recently that pangolins can no longer be used in traditional medicine. He may also be pleased to know that, in addition to funding via the Illegal Wildlife Trade Challenge Fund, the UK played a defining role in getting proposals past CITES in 2016 that ensured that all eight species of pangolin received the highest possible level of protection from international trade.

We know that change is possible and that nature protection works. It works for people and it works for the planet. Look at Costa Rica: it has doubled its rainforest in one generation, putting more than half the country under canopy and growing its economy alongside its nature. We are leading global alliances to protect at least 30% of the world’s land and oceans by 2030, and we are pursuing an ambitious new UN treaty to establish mechanisms to protect ocean beyond national jurisdiction.

In answer to a question put to me by the author of this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, we are working as closely as possible with the Chinese as hosts of the next biodiversity conference in Kunming. Although our representation will be confirmed closer to the meeting, we are doing more heavy lifting than perhaps any other country. We are pressing hard for the highest possible ambition and, crucially, we are pushing for inclusion of mechanisms to hold Governments to the promises they make, which currently is lacking.

We know that public money alone is not going to be enough, so Governments need to identify and use the powerful levers that they uniquely hold to remove the perverse incentives that drive environmental destruction. Consider, for example that the top 50 food-producing countries spend $700 billion a year supporting often destructive land use. That is four times the world’s aid budgets combined. Imagine the impact if that public support could be redirected to help farmers transition to climate-friendly, nature-positive land management. In a world first, that is what we are doing in the UK, and we are building alliances of countries committed to doing the same.

Commodity production is responsible for the vast majority of deforestation, so we are building a global coalition of countries committed to cleaning up commodity supply chains. We are also calling on the large multilateral development banks to nature-proof their entire portfolios. There is no point in having bits of investments here and there in nature if the rest of the portfolio is taking us in the opposite direction. That point was made well by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, in relation to the private sector, where the point stands just as strongly. We are pulling every lever we have to get private finance flowing, including by accelerating progress towards high-integrity carbon markets.

There is no doubt in my mind that we are driving the agenda internationally, and that is recognised by other countries around the world. However, as a number of noble Lords have said, we need to get our own house in order. We have seen shocking biodiversity loss in recent decades. Last year’s State of Nature review found that 41% of UK species are declining. We have seen an increasing intensity of flood damage caused at least in part by poor land use. We know that meeting our net-zero emissions obligation will require heavy lifting on a scale that we have never seen before.

I know that the noble Earl, Lord Devon, questions the need for us to declare an emergency but I hope that my opening remarks, as well as this bleak picture of declining biodiversity in the UK, persuades him otherwise. I could add that our indicator of pollinator distribution has fallen by 30% since 1980. Our indicator of farmland bird abundance has fallen by more than 50% since 1970. That case was made extremely well by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, said, no matter what we do now, improvements will take time to materialise. In answer to the noble Earl’s question, biodiversity is devolved; however, all the regions are in broad agreement on the need to act. That is a good thing.

We have a packed agenda. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, asked for precise targets and a clear plan, a point also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. The recently published Dasgupta review provides an extraordinarily important backdrop, and we will be responding to it properly and thoroughly soon. Our plans to boost biodiversity and improve the environment within a generation are set out in the 25-year environment plan. We set the world’s most ambitious climate change target into law to reduce emissions by 78% by 2035, compared to 1990 levels, an announcement made just a couple of days ago.

We are setting out plans for a bold net-zero strategy to demonstrate how we will cut emissions and create new jobs across the whole country. Our upcoming Environment Bill will deliver improvements in waste, air quality, water, nature, biodiversity and more. It lays the foundation for the nature recovery network and creates duties and incentives, such as biodiversity net gain for all new developments, which is also a world first. The Bill establishes spatial mapping and planning tools to deliver nature recovery, creates new nature covenants for the long-term protection of land—another world first—and creates a new body to hold government to account.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, asked about biodiversity targets in the Bill. It creates a power to set long-term, legally binding environmental targets, and we will want to ensure that for biodiversity these targets at least align with international targets to be set through the CBD. We are continuing work on that suite of targets, including in the priority areas of biodiversity and improving the state of nature.

We are switching our land-use subsidy system so that the payments are conditional on good environmental outcomes, just as we are asking the world to do. That, too, is a world first. Incidentally, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, raised the underappreciated but hugely important issue of soil health. I can tell her that soil health has been identified as a priority for our environmental land management scheme. My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering asked if the scheme would support farmers to play their role in reversing nature decline. Absolutely. That is the entire purpose of the environment land management system.

In another world first, we are legislating to require big companies to remove deforestation from their commodity supply chains to help shrink our international footprint. Again, we are asking other countries to do the same. We know that to meet net zero we need to establish record numbers of trees, so we have committed to planting 30,000 hectares a year across the UK by 2025, using the new £640 million Nature for Climate Fund. We want to unleash the extraordinary power of natural regeneration as well. Anyone who has seen the wonders of NEP will know why that matters.

In answer to my noble friend Lord Caithness—the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, also raised this—we will be investing in methods to control deer and grey squirrel numbers as part of our efforts to protect new and existing native woodlands. To further protect them, and in answer to my noble friend Lord Lucas, we will be emphasising the huge and critical importance of not only species diversity but genetic diversity. Incidentally, he raised the importance of educating children, and I could not agree more.

Alongside our tree commitment, we have committed to restoring 35,000 hectares of peatland. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked about the use of peat in horticulture. I can tell him that we are committed to phasing it out in England. We told industry that if we had not seen enough movement by 2020, we would look at further measures that could be taken. We are now considering those future measures. We also have ambitious plans to protect our threatened pollinators, a point made well by the noble Lords, Lord Jones of Cheltenham and Lord Sikka. All this goes alongside plans to greatly improve the health and protection of our precious marine environment.

It is often said that we need to weave the environment into our economics but, as Professor Dasgupta’s seminal study explained, that is the wrong way round. Ultimately all economic activity is derived from nature. Without nature, we have nothing and we are nothing. Reconciling our lives and economies with the natural world on which we all depend is really the defining challenge of our age. I am absolutely convinced that this can be the year that change begins in earnest.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, that completes the business before the Grand Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.

Committee adjourned at 6.22 pm.

House of Lords

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Lords Chamber

Thursday 22 April 2021

12:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of London.

Arrangement of Business

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Lords Chamber

Announcement

12:07

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them brief and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also in the same spirit.

Overseas Development Assistance: Budgets and Awards

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Lords Chamber

Question

12:08

Asked by

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will publish a list of the reductions in Overseas Development Assistance budgets and awards for (1) 2019/20, and (2) 2020/21.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests and beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, UK official development assistance—ODA—in 2019 and 2020 was: £15.2 billion, of which £11.8 billion was spent by the FCDO; and £14.5 billion, with £10.7 billion spent by the FCDO respectively. The full detailed breakdown of ODA spend for 2019 was published on 24 September in the Statistics on International Development. The final 2020 spend will be published in the same final UK aid spend statistics in the autumn of this year and will contain detailed breakdowns of the UK’s ODA spend for 2020, including an activity-level dataset.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government have today published their planned expenditure for 2021-22. This Conservative Government won the 2019 election and their manifesto said:

“We will proudly maintain our commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of GNI on development”.


Today they are breaking that promise and breaking the law of the land. As a result, fewer girls will go to school, fewer vaccinations will cost lives and the UK will cut its support for conflict prevention by more than half. This cruel and callous plan shames our country. Will the Government do the right thing and put it to a vote?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I first put on record that I note the sentiments of the noble Lord and the excellent work that he does in this area. However, I am sure that he, equally, will recognise that the UK economy is today 11.3% smaller than it was last year and undergoing its worst contraction for 300 years. The deficit this year is projected to be double its peak during the financial crisis. This does require difficult decisions, they have been taken and the Government have committed to restore the 0.7% as soon as the fiscal situation allows.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]]

My Lords, many see the announcement of quite major cuts to the overseas development assistance budget as a tragic blow to the poorest and most marginalised people in the world. It seems that the Government have not even spared countries that have been ravaged by disease, war and poverty. How does the Minister answer these charges, at such a critical time of pandemic? Is not this investment in such countries money well spent?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord’s final point. Any money spent in respect of alleviating the suffering of humanity, wherever that may be, is money well spent. On his challenge to me to justify this, I can point no further than to the support we have given throughout the Covid-19 pandemic to helping countries directly. We are also the people who put the architecture in place for the COVAX facility, which is now helping people with vaccinations globally, through a contribution of £548 million made by the UK.

[Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)]

My Lords, is it not an irony that the ODA budget was one of the most scrutinised in government, where outcomes are actually tracked by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact? Would that other government programmes had such scrutiny. Is it not a further irony that this budget has been subject to cuts, with the harsh effects that we have now seen, when it would already have fallen because of the contraction in the size of the economy? Will my noble friend confirm that that is the case, and by how much the budget would have fallen anyway before this action was taken?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend’s final point. As I said in my original Answer in response to the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, we saw a contraction in last year’s budget, where there was a real drop in the actual spend on ODA resulting from the economy contracting in the manner that it did. I also agree with my noble friend on the importance of scrutiny of ODA. That is why the Government have committed to working with ICAI on its valuable work, and that will continue to be the case.

[Baroness Hayman (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my registered interests in malaria and neglected tropical diseases. Both these areas are already feeling the devastating effects of cuts in UK funding, for example the cessation of drug treatments as part of the highly successful Ascend NTD programme and the cut to UKRI funding for research at Imperial College into infectious diseases such as malaria. Where exactly does this leave the Government’s other manifesto commitment to

“lead the way in eradicating … malaria”?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, first, I know how much work the noble Baroness has put into fighting malaria. The noble Baroness and I have worked together, particularly on issues in this area that relate to the Commonwealth. We remain very much committed to research and technology. Indeed, there are specific allocations as well as allocations across the piece. On the issue of fighting various diseases, we remain very much committed to Gavi, CEPI and supporting the work of the World Health Organization in fighting any kind of disease, anywhere around the world.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, some of the relevant reductions in ODA are already available and are alarming. For example, Yemen has the greatest humanitarian crisis in the world today and one would expect it to be spared the full effect of the cuts—but no. We know that in the year 2021-22 the UK plans to provide “at least £87 million”. Last year, 2020-21, £164 million was pledged and £207 million was dispersed. It is little wonder that Sir Mark Lowcock of the UN accused the Government of having decided to

“balance the books on the backs of the starving people of Yemen”.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I know Sir Mark Lowcock well. I do not share his opinion. As the noble Lord himself has said, we remain very much committed to Yemen, both in terms of political settlement and the support we are providing through the UK aid pledge of £87 million for 2021-22.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

What are the fiscal conditions that would allow a return to 0.7%? The Minister said the economy has shrunk by 11%. Why are the Government cutting bilateral aid by 50%?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord would acknowledge the contributions the Government have made to various challenges that we face domestically. That has called for hard decisions, including looking at ODA. As I said earlier, we will look to restore 0.7% at the earliest opportunity.

[Baroness Fall (Con) [V]]

My Lords, through our aid budget we are able to insure ourselves against mass migration, terrorism, pandemics and environmental destruction, as well as standing by our commitment to the world’s poor. Our cut to 0.5% from 0.7% is, as others have said, a double whammy alongside a shrinking economy. It also means that when we return to 0.7%, as the Government have committed, when the fiscal outlook improves there will be a windfall. What will the Minister spend that windfall on? Is it to go to many of the programmes that we are going to cut today, and does that not speak to short-termism at the expense of the British national interest?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, let me assure my noble friend that, while have had to make reductions in ODA, we will remain very much focused— as the WMS that we laid last night indicates—on key priorities, including the issues of humanitarian preparedness and climate change. Priorities for the future will be determined at that time, but there are projects that we are invested in for the long term and that will continue.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned scrutiny of the budget. The chair of the IDC, Sarah Champion, said yesterday:

“To say the statement”—


on planned spending—

“is scant on detail is an understatement.”

We are still awaiting guidance on country-by-country allocations. Can the Minister confirm exactly how much the cuts will affect the FCDO’s bilateral nutrition portfolios? If he is unable to answer, can he confirm when the House can expect a precise figure?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, we will be announcing the particular detail that the noble Lord has requested in the very near future.

[Baroness D’Souza (CB) [V]]

My Lords, like so many others I was taken aback to learn that the cuts were to be across the board and would include very recently established programmes. A careful assessment of priority programmes is of course time consuming, but does this mean that cutting assistance for starving and wounded Yemeni children is to be equated with, let us say, cuts to training videos? Do the cuts have to be so unthinking?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

I assure the noble Baroness that a lot of thought has gone into the reductions we have had to make.

[Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]]

[Inaudible.]—the specific application of funding for a Covid response by sitting this as part of the now much-reduced health allocation. Is it, in effect, a double hit against basic health and survival nutrition programmes? Can my noble friend explain why the Covid response does not sit outside this allocation, as an exceptional response to a particular and exceptional humanitarian issue?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend will recognise that all countries, not just the United Kingdom but globally, have readjusted their own spend in-country to respond to Covid. It is a pandemic like no other that has gripped the modern world. It is therefore right that, when we look at our health outcomes and indeed our health spending, the Covid challenge cannot be ignored and is part and parcel of the integrated perspective in tackling health issues around the world.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.

E-Scooters

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Lords Chamber

Question

12:19

Asked by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) the use of e-scooters, and (2) the number of (a) offences, and (b) casualties, caused by their use.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)]

My Lords, e-scooter rental trials are under way in 31 regions across England, with the purpose of assessing their safety, benefits and wider impacts. Trials in London will begin in May. Evidence gathered from all 32 trials will inform a decision about future legal sales of e-scooters. We have made no assessment of their use, or the number of offences or casualties caused by their use, at this stage; these issues will form part of our overall evaluation, later this year.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I understand that e-scooters are illegal in London, so how is it that they are terrorising our streets and pavements, endangering and imperilling other road users and those using pavements, particularly vulnerable older pedestrians, young families and the disabled, as well as the sight-impaired? The most recent statistics that I have seen include pedal bikes, covering e-bikes and e-scooters. In 2019, 379 pedestrians were hit by pedal cyclists; four were killed and 122 were seriously injured. The questions to my noble friend are: what is the current framework for enforcement? Who is monitoring the use of e-scooters to ensure that they are limited to private land outside London and what penalties are imposed for their illegal use?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My noble friend highlights the intricacies of the different micromobility interventions that we have, of which e-scooters is but one. She is right that the private use of e-scooters on public highways is illegal. A person can be fined up to £300 or get six points on their licence, and their e-scooter can be impounded, so we have tools at our disposal. Local enforcement activities are operational decisions for local police forces.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, barely a day passes when I am not passed, in my wheelchair, on my way to the House, by someone riding an e-scooter on the pavement. Given the danger that e-scooters pose to disabled people, particularly those with visual impairments, and given the tools at the disposal of the authorities, which my noble friend the Minister has just mentioned, what reassurance can she offer disabled people that those tools will be used?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My noble friend is right that it can be a frightening prospect, particularly for vulnerable people using the road or pavement, to be terrorised by e-scooter users. But that does not mean that we should not proceed with trials that will establish exactly what the risks are and build an evidence base, as to how they might be successfully used. I take note of his comments and will make sure that colleagues in the Home Office are aware of the concerns about enforcement against the use of e-scooters on pavements.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware that Birmingham is one of the cities selected for the e-scooters trial, and that representatives of the blind and partially sighted community have expressed widespread concern about the number of these wretched things that have been abandoned in the city centre as a result of this trial? Does the Minister anticipate ditching her ministerial car to use one and can she see the Peers’ car park being packed with e-scooters at some time in the future? Finally, can she reflect on replacing the private car with these sorts of machines? We have heard it all before, so will e-scooters go the same way as the Sinclair C5 or Segway?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, the Government believe that e-scooters, if used in the right way, have great potential and could encourage modal shift away from the car. That is why we are doing these trials. I am delighted that Birmingham has decided to be forward-thinking, as I would expect of it, and to take up the opportunity for a trial. A lot goes into place when a trial is established; there is careful liaison with the local police and the operator. A key concern is to make sure that the scooters are put back where they belong, and we are very focused on that with each of the operators.

[Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, will the Minister undertake to introduce lessons on the safe use of electric scooters as part of road safety education in schools, when the Government get to the point of making decisions on how they should be operated in the future? Can she also undertake that charities representing the disabled will be fully consulted before the Government make final decisions?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I can certainly guarantee the latter: we will be consulting all sorts of people, when we make the final decision on the trials. As I noted, the trials are in place. I cannot go into the hypothetical of what might happen if the Government might do something in the future. However, at the moment, users of the trials get instructions from the app about their use. There are stickers on the scooters reminding people to stay off the pavements and about the areas where the scooters can be used. Some operators have advanced training modules and incentives for users to complete them.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

The Government have provided for a number of e-scooter trials around the country, as the Minister has indicated. What will constitute positive and negative outcomes of an e-scooter pilot exercise?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

That is a very specific question, to which I probably cannot provide an answer. As the noble Lord knows, when it comes to road safety, there are always benefits and significant risks to be carefully looked at together. As we go through these trials, evidence will come forth, which we will look at and make a decision accordingly.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

My Lords, it is not surprising that there have been so many serious injuries, because the combined weight of a miscreant and their scooter is over 100 kilos. They often break the speed limit at over 40 mph. Will the Government encourage local police forces to enforce the law, so that injuries and death can be avoided? Blind people are particularly vulnerable, of course.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My noble friend has identified for your Lordships’ House the difference between illegal use of private e-scooters on public roads and the trials. To date, there have been 2 million journeys on e-scooters within the trials. They have travelled the equivalent distance to the moon and back 13 times, which is 5 million kilometres. In all that time, there have been zero fatalities and zero people hospitalised as in-patients. There have been 11 injuries that could be called serious, but were not hospitalisation injuries, and 62 slight injuries, such as a sprained ankle—from 2 million journeys. The noble Lord mentioned that they can go up to 40 mph. Again, that is impossible for a trial e-scooter, which is limited to 15.5 mph. It is important that we continue with these trials, embrace technology and innovation, assess the risks and make the right decision.

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, while this is expensive, it is sold without any guidance or rules. I spoke to 10 scooter owners on my street, over a few days. They were of various ages and all male. Not one was aware of the restriction on public use or had been issued advice on licensing or insurance at the time of purchase. I tried it in my back yard, and it is fun. Does the Minister agree, regardless of what she is saying and the assurance she has made, that ambiguities about the rules of their use remain? When can we expect a government direction to be made available to all retailers and manufacturers? Is it time for the Government to consider a public information campaign?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

When one purchases an e-scooter, the vast majority of retailers say that it is for use on private land only. I will take the noble Baroness’s comments back to the department to see what else we can do.

[Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, given the dangers to pedestrians, particularly disabled pedestrians, how come there are scooters on the pavement within a few hundred yards of the Palace of Westminster and elsewhere, when it is against the law to be on the pavement anywhere? How come there have been so few prosecutions and that you are still allowed to buy and sell these scooters when, in the trial areas, you must use those provided by designated renters only?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I have probably addressed many of the issues that the noble Lord points out. I will take that point about enforcement and what more we can do back to the Home Office. E-scooters should never be on the pavement, as is the case with bicycles. The OECD’s international transport forum analysed various global studies of e-scooter safety and concluded that they are broadly equivalent to cycles. That may or may not be reassuring to the noble Lord.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.

Covid-19: Pupil Referral Units

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Lords Chamber

Question

12:30

Asked by

[Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what support they have given to students in Pupil Referral Units during the COVID-19 pandemic; and whether such students received the same treatment and prioritisation as those in other education settings.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)]

My Lords, it will be no surprise to noble Lords that, on the 28th anniversary of the death of her son, Stephen Lawrence, the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, is here asking a Question on behalf of others, and I pay tribute to her for that. The Government recognise that education is a key protective factor for vulnerable students, and we therefore prioritise those in alternative provision. These settings remained open throughout the pandemic. Support included last summer’s £7.1 million alternative provision transition fund for year 11 pupils to make a successful transition to post-16 education, additional support through the workforce fund and, most recently, increased levels of funding for mass asymptomatic testing.

[Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for talking about my son, Stephen. Since the pandemic, have pupils in pupil referral units been supported and prioritised, as those in other educational settings have? What is the impact on their education? Are they being monitored to return to mainstream school? As we know, the majority of people in pupil referral units are boys from the black community.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

The Government were keen to ensure that alternative provision got additional support, so the Covid catch-up fund was triple the amount put into mainstream provision—£240 per pupil rather than £80. An additional £730 million has been put into the high-needs budget this year. The Government are acutely aware that in these settings are some of our most vulnerable young people. I also draw attention to the amazing staff who, during the pandemic, did much to protect them.

[Baroness Blower (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I salute my noble friend Lady Lawrence on Stephen Lawrence Day. In a statement at its recent conference, the NEU said that it is a symptom of poverty and racism that the majority of those in pupil referral units are working-class and black students. Does the Minister agree that, as the pandemic has laid bare the extent of racial inequality, to begin to tackle this in education schools need resources to prevent exclusions, including smaller classes and engaging a flexible curriculum, and much more investment in pastoral systems?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, the cohort within alternative provision is incredibly mixed, and only just over 40% of those in such settings have been permanently excluded from mainstream education. Of those, 70.7% are white British, an overrepresentation, since 65.4% of the population is white British. However, the noble Baroness is right that 3% are of black-Caribbean heritage, while they represent only 1% of the population. Also, 3.7% in alternative provision are Asian, while 11.4% of pupils are of British-Asian heritage. Who is currently in alternative provision is a complex picture.

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, we welcome the increased level of catch-up funding for pupil referral units, but will the Minister tell the House how the Government will ensure that the funding alleviates the pressure on staff and students that they faced during the pandemic?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, as mainstream state-funded provision, the staff costs are still paid regardless of attendance. The initial feedback is that the £7.1 million in transition funding, which enabled the staff to ensure that AP ends at 16 and there is a successful transition into post-16, was successful. We are looking at whether that can be extended for a further year.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, Stephen Lawrence’s memory should be for a blessing. I commend JW3’s Gateways programme, which provides integrated education and vocational provision for vulnerable young people and those experiencing mental health challenges within the Jewish community. Additionally, the trustees of JW3 should be congratulated, since they are in the process of establishing the first PRU in the Jewish community after consulting a wide range of Jewish schools in north-west London that are desperate for such a PRU to exist. Can the Minister consider how the department could assist the trustees to ensure that the new PRU becomes a centre of excellence?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, it is pleasing to hear of that kind of community response to these issues. Noble Lords may remember that there are, of course, non-maintained special schools, which apparently include some alternative provision. Many of those that remain are Jewish or Catholic in their religious ethos, but it is open to any community to open a registered provider within the independent sector. I will be pleased to write to my noble friend to outline how that might be possible within the state-funded alternative provision sector.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, PRUs cater for some of the most disadvantaged, disturbed and sometimes dangerous students. I taught in one for a while, and it was an unforgettable experience. The NEU found that there was a 17% rise in the number of pupils with education, health and care plans in pupil referral units last year. How are the Government ensuring that every child with an EHCP is being educated in the most appropriate setting for them?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, there is a very high level of those with not only EHCP but SEND generally. Around 80% end up in some form of alternative provision. The AP settings are part of the SEND review so that they can be considered together. We recognise that this is often not the most appropriate place for young people to end up, and we will look at how to change the dynamic that is operating.

[Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)]

My Lords, given the proven likelihood that PRUs can be highways to hopelessness, driving vulnerable young people towards long-term criminality, what is the Government’s assessment of why PRUs tend not to lead to successful educational and social outcomes? Also, given the opportunities of the Oasis Restore secure school, funded by the Ministry of Justice and opening in Medway next year, how involved will the Department for Education be in defining and inspecting the curriculum, as well as underpinning the well-being of all those educated in this new, remarkable school?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, our aspirations are the same for all young people, regardless of where they are being educated, but it is true that some young people who end up in alternative provision are, for instance, of secondary school age but with only a primary school reading age. Therefore, the classic traditional measures of educational performance must be looked at in terms of the progress which that young person can make. Many of the AP settings are acutely aware of the safeguarding of their students. Many work closely with the 18 violence reduction units to safeguard their pupils, and I will write to the noble Lord about the first secure school, which is within the Ministry of Justice’s provision.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I add my tribute to my noble friend Lady Lawrence of Clarendon, for the great strength of character that she has shown following the callous murder of her son, and for the work that she has done in establishing the Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust.

Many pupil referral units have been forced to cut services for vulnerable and disadvantaged pupils because of the severe reduction in funding following the drop in referrals during the pandemic. There is real concern in the sector that the increased level of recovery funding for PRUs announced by the Government is unlikely to be sufficient to meet the anticipated surge in demand. Does the Minister accept that the Government must heed those concerns and review the per-pupil element of the funding formula to ensure consistency and parity of funding with mainstream schools?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, obviously some young people are dual registered, so they are mainstream as well as AP funded. During the two formal lockdowns when schools were closed, the guidance from the department to local authorities was that they should pay the top-up element that they pay to these provisions. If a pupil referral unit that is still an LA-maintained unit is in financial difficulty, obviously it goes to its local authority; in relation to the other alternative provision—the just over 40% of the sector that is academised—I can assure the noble Lord that we are keeping a close watch on the financial situation of that provision.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that many children who end up in these units come from backgrounds where they do not have supportive families and people who are keen on education? Does the Minister also accept that these are the groups in which undiagnosed special educational needs—I remind the House of my declared interests in this field—do not get spotted until much later, if at all, and probably in the prison system? Do the Government have any process by which to pick up on the backlog of identification caused by the pandemic and the missed school experience?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, it is precisely for those reasons that we must consider AP in the context of the SEND review and work out why some conditions are not being spotted early enough. For instance, it seems that in an all-through setting—we now have some all-through schools—spotting it in early years or reception is vital to the educational progress of those young people. As I have outlined, we need to look at why so many young people with these needs are ending up in alternative provision and with late diagnosis of conditions.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the fourth Oral Question.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Lords Chamber

Question

12:41

Asked by

[Lord Tyler]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review and update the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are already conducting post-legislative scrutiny of Part 1 of the transparency of lobbying Act, which established the register. The post-legislative scrutiny was announced in 2020, and earlier this year Ministers met stakeholders to seek their views.

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I recall that during the passage of the transparency Bill I quoted Mr Cameron as saying:

“Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”—[Official Report, 13/1/14; col. 29.]


Will the Government now implement the recommendations from the Public Relations and Communications Association to strengthen the Act? As the Minister will know, I and my colleagues secured a promise to include special advisers when the legislation had settled down and to examine the case for the inclusion of in-house lobbyists. Given the widespread public perception of Tory sleaze, will the Government now take action to ensure that the Act recognises the danger of privileged access for their prominent political supporters?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord asks a wide range of questions there. In my contention, I believe that we have very high standards of integrity in public life in this country, and indeed in our Civil Service. But wherever there is the possibility of wrongdoing it should be investigated, and where it is uncovered it should be addressed. The Boardman review has been announced, and that work will be taken into account in any relevant post-legislative scrutiny work that is continuing.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I am back. On 13 January 2014, an amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, my noble friend Lady Royall and me would have extended the lobbying Bill to include in-house lobbyists and so cover, for example, David Cameron’s lobbying on behalf of Greensill. His then Government defeated that amendment by 185 to 218—two Not-Contents, of course, being from the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Tyler. In the light of recent events, will the Minister now support a full register of all professional lobbyists? Will he take it from me that we will judge the forthcoming Queen’s Speech on whether it includes measures to outlaw the invidious, secret, back-channel lobbying that is so undermining of good governance?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I make a practice at this Dispatch Box of not throwing stones, and I think everyone in every party should be cautious about throwing stones. In response to what the noble Baroness said—I am sorry that she is in her place, but it is good to see her—on the question of in-house lobbyists, it is true that the Government did not pursue that in 2014. There are issues involved. It obviously will be considered currently. Such an approach would require thousands of businesses, charities, NGOs and trade bodies to pay a registration fee of £1,000 a year to write or speak to Ministers. That could be detrimental to the public interest, but I note what the noble Baroness says.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I take my share of responsibility for the last Act. It is now clear that we have to extend further the coverage of lobbying activities. Will the Minister accept that these should include greater transparency for political think tanks, including full declaration of their sources of funding? As he will know, Conservative MPs are concerned about the Runnymede Trust. Others of us are concerned about the Institute of Economic Affairs and Policy Exchange, for example, which declare on their websites their access to Ministers and their influence over government policy.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes a further suggestion. Since 2010, with the help of the party opposite, we have brought in a statutory registration of consultant lobbyists and a new routine of regular government transparency publications on spending, salaries, contracts and tenders. We are implementing the recommendations of the Boardman review on procurement. We have banned the practice under previous Governments of quangos hiring lobbyists to lobby the Government. We have made sure that taxpayer-funded government grants are not used for lobbying purposes and have provided for greater transparency on trade unions. We have done a number of things. That does not mean that more may not need to be done. I accept that work is ongoing to consider these matters.

[Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Con) [V]]

Does my noble friend the Minister agree that there is a much simpler solution to the lobbying problem than that being discussed? What is being discussed would require a written definition of what constitutes lobbying or who is or is not a lobbyist, which can lead only to endless arguments about interpretation. Is not the neatest and most effective solution to require all civil servants, serving Ministers and spads formally to log all and any lobbying approaches, however informal, and prescribe that they must respond by requiring the lobbyist to “put it in writing”? No one will ever stop people trying to lobby, so the onus should be on the recipient of any lobbying to respond in the correct manner.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I agree that transparency is important; that has been a standard across the House. Ministers’ and Permanent Secretaries’ appointments are published. Obviously, there is ongoing review of this work, not only by the Government but by a number of parliamentary committees. I am sure what my noble friend said will be noted.

[Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, while it is right to constrain the power of lobbyists and former Ministers renting themselves out, the real cancer at the heart of our politics is corporate money and power, which fund political parties and legislators to gain unfair advantage in public policy-making. Is the Minister concerned? If so, what legislation will he propose?

[Lord True (Con)]

The noble Lord is the antithesis to capitalism. The remarkable success of private companies in procuring vaccines for the safety of our people is something for which I am profoundly grateful.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

What changes will be made to the code about lobbying for government contracts directly via a Minister’s WhatsApp account and text?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, all these matters are currently under review. I declare myself guilty occasionally of sending and receiving WhatsApp messages, in common with millions of other people in this country. I wonder which is the way to the guillotine.

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con) [V]]

My Lords, my question complements that of my noble friend Lord Grade. Given that the 2014 Act did not increase transparency and was focused not on lobbying but on lobbyists—the people, not the activity—will my noble friend commit to looking at ways to ensure that details of all representations made to government on Bills and ministerial policies are released at the same time that those Bills and policies are published?

[Lord True (Con)]

Again, my Lords, the noble Lord raises a specific point, as have a couple of other noble Lords who have spoken. I repeat that the Government have significantly increased transparency. There is post-legislative scrutiny of the Act and the Government will be going further to review and improve business appointment rules and increase transparency in procurement. We need to maintain high standards in public life—I agree with all noble Lords who have spoken.

[Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that nobody should be a Member of either House of Parliament who is a paid advocate for a particular cause?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, we have long had a paid-advocacy rule in your Lordships’ House, and it is a good rule.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend will recall that I took charge in the Commons of the passage of the transparency of lobbying et cetera Act. In my view it was wrong then and is wrong now to include in-house lobbyists, because many thousands of people working in companies will have to register simply to speak on behalf of their own company.

My noble friends Lord Grade and Lord Norton of Louth have it right. There has never been a sufficient level of openness about who Ministers receive lobbying from, or indeed receive any communication from. That should be published. It was not sufficient then and it is not sufficient now.

[Lord True (Con)]

My noble friend puts his finger on a key issue that I alluded to in my reply to the noble Baroness opposite, in terms of the scale of the undertaking that would be required. I agree—government publishes data on meetings between Ministers, Permanent Secretaries and external interests. Regulation must balance the need for transparency on third-party lobbyists while not preventing engagement by the voluntary and private sector. These issues require and will receive very careful consideration. I can assure all noble Lords that the matter of integrity in public life is something that this Government take profoundly seriously.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed and it brings Question Time to an end.

Arrangement of Business

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Lords Chamber

Announcement of Recess Dates

12:52

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Chief Whip, I thought this would be a convenient time to confirm the plan for the Summer Recess. Subject as is always the case to the progress of business, we will rise for the summer in the conclusion of proceedings on Thursday 22 July and return on Monday 6 September. A copy of these dates will be made available in the Royal Gallery. Further recess dates will be confirmed in due course.

12:53

Sitting suspended.

Russia: Alexei Navalny

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Lords Chamber

Private Notice Question

13:00

Asked by

[Lord Walney]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the government of Russia regarding the treatment of imprisoned Russian opposition leader, Alexei Navalny.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, on 19 April the Foreign Secretary underlined that Russia is responsible for Alexei Navalny’s deteriorating health, and that Mr Navalny must be given immediate access to independent medical care and released from his politically motivated detention. We continue to raise Mr Navalny’s case regularly with Russia, most recently through the British embassy in Moscow on 15 April, and to work with partners to hold Russia to account in multilateral fora, including via the OPCW.

[Lord Walney (Non-Afl)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer but let us be clear what is happening here: Vladimir Putin is directing the slow murder of his main rival as the world looks on. This is not simply an internal matter. The Russian troops amassed on the Ukraine border point to the consequences of letting Putin think he can trample on the rule of law without comeback. Will the Government undertake to increase the number of individuals—Putin’s cronies—being sanctioned by the UK every day until Mr Navalny is released?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. It is a rather perverse situation, with the ruling of 2 February meaning that the very person fighting for democratic rights, who was himself a victim of a direct attack by the Russian state, is now being imprisoned. I agree about increasing pressure and we are doing just that bilaterally and through multilateral fora. On the specific issue of sanctions, I cannot speculate on the future but, as the noble Lord will acknowledge, we have already taken quite specific sanctions against six individuals and an institution because of the poisoning of Alexei Navalny.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, Alexei Navalny’s life is in danger for his campaign against corruption. Up to half of all money laundered out of Russia is still done through the United Kingdom. We have a responsibility, yet there has been no action on golden visas nor powers to sanction corrupt officials and, three years after the Salisbury attack, the Government have failed to fully implement any of the recommendations set out in the Russia report. Also, is the Minister not concerned that, from when David Cameron became leader of his party, almost £5 million has been received by it in Russian-linked donations?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, we are taking quite specific steps to fight corruption and illicit finance. Indeed, he will be aware that we are in the process of looking at broadening the sanctions application to include illicit financing and corruption. On the specific issue of the Russia report, among other steps, I assure him that we will introduce new legislation to provide Security Service and law enforcement agencies with the tools that they need to tackle the evolving threat. On visas, we are reviewing all tier 1 visas granted before 5 April 2015.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, what liaison are the Government having with our European allies over Mr Navalny’s case? Does he agree that we must ensure that sanctions are comprehensive and effective, and that at the moment they are neither?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness will be aware, the sanctions that have already been imposed on the individuals that I mentioned in my response to an earlier question were done in conjunction with our European Union partners. We continue to sustain those sanctions. I think the fact that Russia has taken note and looks to react to this shows the effectiveness of those tools. I repeat once again, and I know the noble Baroness agrees, that whatever we do with sanctions we must continue to work with our close allies, including those in the EU.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Walney, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. I want to ask a question that is a variant of the one that I asked on Monday about Hong Kong: what practical and effective steps can the United Kingdom take, both alone and with our allies, to ensure that, first, Mr Navalny is not murdered or left to die in prison; secondly, that Russia’s nascent democracy is not snuffed out; and, thirdly, that the Russian Government are not tempted to distract from their domestic, political and economic problems by foreign adventures calculated to destabilise their neighbours?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, my noble and learned friend raises some important points. I assure him that the United Kingdom is taking actions quite directly, including, as I have alluded to, with sanctions, which include asset freezes and travel bans. We are acting with our key partners to ensure that a clear message is sent to the Russian state, most recently on 19 April. The Foreign Secretary issued a statement asking for the immediate release of Mr Navalny from detention. We are working through key multilateral organisations. The UK led a G7 statement. Today we are awaiting statements due to be issued as a response at the OCPW. There are OSCE statements today on Mr Navalny and media freedom, and a European human rights ambassadors statement today covering this issue.

[Lord Wigley (PC) [V]]

My Lords, will the Minister spell out in detail what new steps are being taken to stop money laundering from Russia through London? That, more than anything, will probably hit hardest those who need to have their minds focused by this outrageous issue.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I have already detailed some of the steps that we are taking and will continue to take. I agree with the noble Lord that far too much of such money comes through the City of London, and we must seek to ensure the robustness of our regime so that such illicit finance and money does not pass through our country’s capital.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, while I acknowledge, as we must, that Mr Navalny is a political prisoner, does the Minister none the less accept the relevance of the proposition that

“the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilisation of any country”?—[Official Report, Commons, 20/7/1910; col. 1354]

If so, he will be in very good company; it was first articulated by Winston Churchill in July 1910.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I agree. Further, I agree with the great, respected and revered Winston Churchill.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Walney, when he asked his Question, why do we not take sanctions against a given number of people every week until Navalny is released from his appalling jail? Although we know that the Russians veto things at the Security Council, that is no reason for not having an internationally publicised debate on this issue.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, on my noble friend’s second point, we are doing just that, if not necessarily at the UN Security Council. I mentioned the OPCW earlier. There is a specific debate with the Russians, in a constructive fashion, saying: “There was a poisoning of Mr Navalny. Answer the case.” The Russians have not been forthcoming. On the issue of sanctions every day or what may happen in future, there are good reasons why we do not speculate, one of which is that an evidential threshold needs to be met. Anyone or any institution that is sanctioned has the right to appeal, and we need to ensure that the sanctions we impose are robust.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, UN human rights experts have urged Moscow to let Alexei Navalny be medically evaluated abroad. Can the Minister confirm what discussions are being held with the United Nations to ensure that all pressure is put on Moscow to allow an external medical evaluation to take place?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, there are two points in response to the noble Baroness’s question. First, we are calling for that kind of independent access to make that medical assessment with our key partners, within the context of our various representative bodies, such as the UN and the OPCW, as I suggested. Secondly, Russia is part and parcel of the Security Council. It is a P5 member. It has signed up to its responsibilities. It now needs to be seen not just to act but to act in this instance.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked some very good questions and the Minister outlined some measures that may be taken. What is the timetable for undertaking the measures he outlined? Secondly, one person’s political prisoner is not necessarily another’s. Can the Government have a quiet word with the Russians and point out that it is not a particularly good image if people die in custody, as I found out when I served in the European Parliament and Bobby Sands died?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, on the noble Lord’s second point, it was particularly interesting to hear the Russian Ambassador on UK media saying that Russia would do its utmost to ensure that that would not happen. On the specifics of the earlier question, I acknowledge that all the questions I get from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, are extremely good and challenging and that is the way it should be. I alluded to the fact that we have taken specific actions, including the review of tier 1. In pointing to the future, I have said that there will be specific legislation and when that is timetabled I will, of course, share that with my noble friend and your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, the mistreatment of Alexei Navalny on what appear to be trumped up charges ironically mirrors the treatment of Mr Magnitsky himself, after whom the sanctions are named, and could end with the same result. Resolute and firm action is required in conjunction with our many democratic allies throughout the world. Can the Minister confirm that such discussions are taking place and that the message is given to Russia in no uncertain terms that such behaviour has consequences?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord and assure him that such discussions are taking place. We have seen co-ordination through the OSCE, work through the G7 and today at NATO there was a statement on a related subject: the expulsions by the Czech Republic of the Russian diplomats implicated in actions there. The individuals identified by the Czech Republic are the very same ones who carried out the Salisbury attack, so there is a lot of co-ordination.

Let us not forget that it is not just the international community. We have seen protests in 100 cities across Russia. The protests continue to be suppressed. We also need to stand up for the people of Russia: they are also asking for Alexei Navalny to be released. It is about time the Russians listened not only to the international community but to their own citizens.

[The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am afraid we must wait until the time shown on the Order Paper for the next business. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn for two minutes.

13:13

Sitting suspended.

Arrangement of Business

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Lords Chamber

Announcement

13:15

[The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.

Highgate Cemetery Bill [HL]

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

13:16

Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

Prisons (Substance Testing) Bill

Order of Commitment discharged
Thursday 22nd April 2021 Lords Chamber

Order of Commitment Discharged

13:16

Moved by

[Baroness Pidding]

That the order of commitment be discharged.

[Baroness Pidding (Con)]

My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to speak in Committee. Manuscript amendments are not possible at present. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.

Motion agreed.

Botulinum Toxin and Cosmetic Fillers (Children) Bill

Order of Commitment discharged
Thursday 22nd April 2021 Lords Chamber

Order of Commitment Discharged

13:17

Moved by

[Baroness Wyld]

That the order of commitment be discharged.

[Baroness Wyld (Con)]

My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to speak in Committee. Manuscript amendments are not possible at present. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.

Motion agreed.

Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill

Order of Commitment discharged
Thursday 22nd April 2021 Lords Chamber

Order of Commitment Discharged

13:18

Moved by

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge]

That the order of commitment be discharged.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to speak in Committee. Manuscript amendments are not possible at present. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.

Motion agreed.

Education (Guidance about Costs of School Uniforms) Bill

Report stage
Thursday 22nd April 2021 Lords Chamber

Report

13:19

Report received.

Forensic Science Regulator Bill

3rd reading
Thursday 22nd April 2021 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

13:19

Motion

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. In moving this Motion, I wish to make a few brief remarks. I would like to place on record my thanks to my good friend the honourable Member for Bristol North West in the other place, Mr Darren Jones, for skilfully steering this Bill through the House of Commons and asking me to take the Bill up in your Lordships’ House. I also want to thank Dr Gillian Tully, the recently outgoing Forensic Science Regulator, for understanding that this Bill was necessary to support the regulator and place them on a statutory basis. I also want to pay tribute to both the Science and Technology Committee of this House and of the Commons for pushing for this change. I thank the Government, and particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, for recognising a problem and supporting this important measure.

I also thank all noble Lords for not being tempted to table amendments to make a good Bill an even better Bill. As we all know, Private Member’s Bills risk falling due to the pressures of time. Clearly, more will need to be done in this area, but this Bill is a big step forward. It will make a real difference in ensuring that the highest standards are in place across forensic science services. As we debated during Second Reading, it is important for victims, defendants and the community to ensure that forensic science of the highest standard helps everybody receive the justice that they deserve.

Bill passed.

13:21

Sitting suspended.

Arrangement of Business

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Lords Chamber

Announcement

13:30

[The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.

National Security and Investment Bill

3rd reading
Thursday 22nd April 2021 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

13:30

Motion

Moved by

[Lord Callanan]

That the Bill do now pass.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, I start by expressing my gratitude to noble Lords from across the whole House for their contributions to the passage of the Bill. In particular, I thank my noble friends Lord Grimstone and Lady Bloomfield for their steadfast help, guidance and support throughout its passage. I also place on record my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town—my commiserations on the results of the Lord Speaker election—and to the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Rooker, for their constructive attitude and helpful challenges from the Opposition Front Bench throughout the passage of the Bill. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Clement-Jones, for their customary ability to ask the most difficult questions at totally wrong times during the passage of the Bill.

It would also be remiss of me not to thank some of my noble friends who have taken a particular interest in ensuring that we get the Bill right. I am thinking in particular of my noble friends Lord Lansley, Lady Noakes, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, Lord Leigh of Hurley, Lord Vaizey of Didcot, Lady McIntosh and others.

Noble Lords from across the House have rightly held the Government’s feet to the fire in a number of areas, in the finest traditions of this House, and I can honestly say that the Bill leaves the House in a better state as a result of that scrutiny. I extend my particular thanks to parliamentary counsel for their exemplary drafting and to the clerks and all the House authorities for shepherding us through these exceptional times. The smoothness with which proceedings flow masks the sometimes immense and exceptional logistical operation going on behind the scenes.

I also extend my thanks to the officials and lawyers within my department, who have worked tirelessly on the drafting and subsequent passage of the Bill, for their immense patience in explaining some of the difficult concepts to a mere simpleton such as myself. In particular, I thank Dr Sarah Mackintosh, Mike Penry, Danny McCarthy, Arash Abzarian, Alex Midgley and George Kokkinos, who embarked on their NSI journey before I was even a Minister in this department. In my view, they act in the finest traditions of our civil servants, and I am very grateful to them for all their expert help, support and guidance. Finally, I thank the wonderful Melissa Craig, in my private office, and the immense Yasmin Kalhori in the Whips’ Office, who is ever-helpful in feeding forward suggested speaking notes—not all of which I can use in this House.

I said at Second Reading:

“This Bill will keep the British people safe.”—[Official Report, 4/2/21; col. 2335.]


In the meantime, we have had lengthy discussions on fishing, lectures to insolvency practitioners and—in one memorable case—the makeup of a particularly hawkish rugby front row. These discussions and others have made me certain that the Bill will go a long way in ensuring that the UK’s defences are fighting fit, both now and long into the future.

I am heartened that, in the finest traditions of this House, all parties have recognised the Bill’s importance, even if we have disagreed on some of the detail. In that sense, it has genuinely been a cross-party effort, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated. I beg to move.

13:34

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

From these Benches, it is a pleasure to thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, for the way that he handled this important Bill and steered it through your Lordships’ House, so ably supported by the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield. At the end of a long season and Session, it is very rewarding to examine the legislation of the noble Lord, who, with his team, engaged so positively with us and the House. This resulted in real and productive improvements to the Bill—especially on new public guidance, the expert panel and turnaround times, among other features, being included in the annual report.

I am grateful to the Bill team, ably led by Mike Penry, and the department, for their exemplary attention and courtesy shown to us at all times. The broadcasting team were excellent and managed our hybrid proceedings throughout without a hitch. I am also grateful to my lead and boss on the Bill, my noble friend and colleague Lady Hayter, who was disappointed that she could not see it through all its stages to the conclusion.

I would not have been able to step up to the grade without the support my very able legislative assistant in our office, Dan Harris, who, with Ellie Robson, was able to guide me over the hurdles, draft our amendments and take the negotiations with the Public Bill Office completely out of my clumsy hands. I am very grateful to them.

Our team is especially grateful also for assistance that came from outside the House—from the Russell group of universities, the CBI and the Wellcome Trust, as well as the Henry Royce Institute, the BioIndustry Association, the Law Society and the Law Society of Scotland. They have all provided insights and appreciation of the Bill’s likely workings and omissions, which proved invaluable to our attention within the House.

A clear feature of the Bill is how co-operatively the Minister and his team have worked with us and the House throughout, to understand and accommodate the pertinent issues in the Bill from our perspective. Of course, there is one clear divergence of opinion between the House and the Government, which we are sending to the Commons for their consideration. For the achievement of that task, I am very grateful to the front row team, marshalled into a complete scrum by our admiral, my noble friend Lord West, at roll call on Report. I am also grateful to my noble friend and colleague Lord Rooker, who guested as a heavyweight on the Front Bench for the occasion. It is very good to see him back in the Chamber and back to good health.

I trust that the positive engagement from across the House—including the Lib Dem and Conservative Benches —and the commitment shown by all noble Lords to a successful outcome, will give the Bill a fair wind to find safe harbour in the Commons.

13:37

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, there has never been any doubt that the Bill’s aims were supported across the whole of the House, and that has added to the quality of the debate from the start. That said, actually delivering a balanced approach to protecting the UK’s security, while ensuring that the necessary flow of investment will not be interrupted, will be a challenge. The debates that we have had have underlined the subtlety of that challenge.

However, the stakes are high. The UK has arguably been one of the most open economies in the world, and it is clear that this openness has let through some transactions that, in retrospect, should not have been permitted. The onus is now on the Government to act in such cases.

The skeletal nature of the Bill has informed quite a lot of the debate that we have had, and it is clear that, from the outset, the Government have sought to keep their options open. To my mind, phrases such as “We will take things on a case-by-case basis” have popped up too often. So I hope that, over time, there will be fewer “case-by-cases” and fewer exceptions—because people need clarity, and that clarity needs to be supported by strong communication. People need to understand how the decisions will be made. If this unit acts as a black box, that will not happen, and investment will definitely be discouraged.

Finally, before the long thank-yous, I apologise for coming back to the amendment on Report that set out the importance of climate change with respect to national security. I will say—with all due respect—that the Minister grudgingly went along with the thesis, but only to the minimum extent necessary. Perhaps his natural combativeness prevented him really appraising or acknowledging the risk.

Therefore, before the Minister moves from this Bill to his next important project, I recommend that he reads an op-ed in Politico by the NATO Secretary-General, Jens Stoltenberg, which came out today. In it, he says that it is clear that climate change

“is making the world a more dangerous place”,

with,

“rising sea levels and more extreme weather … increasing competition for scarce resources and fueling tensions and conflict.”

He states:

“Climate change threatens global security”.


Please note, Minister. That should be reflected in the activities of the new unit.

Of course, one outstanding issue between us remains, symbolised by the flankers here—the noble Lords, Lord West and Lord Campbell—and I hope that the Minister and the Secretary of State will see some sense on that. Otherwise we will be back for ping-pong.

That said, the passage of this Bill has been efficient, and, as the Minister has said, the overall quality of the Bill has been improved through that process. I commend the openness of the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, who has shown his characteristic empathy in the process. The noble Lord listed the very considerable Bill team and all the support that has delivered the Bill, and I second, indeed third, that, because without them there would certainly be no Bill—and, of course, without many of them there would be no unit to make the Bill a reality.

I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for their engagement in this process, and I thank particularly the Members opposite. There are two representatives of them here—the noble Lords, Lord Leigh and Lord Lansley—but there are others, such as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. They must have added to the pressure that the Minister feels: when the noises are coming from behind as well as in front, it makes it harder to resist.

As for the home team, I hope that my colleagues will not mind if I single out, first, Sarah Pughe in the Lib Dem legislative team, who has done a magnificent job supporting us. Among Members, I would mention the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles, Lady Berkhamsted, Lady Northover and Lady Smith of Newnham, the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, Lord McNally and Lord Purvis of Tweed, and, last but no means least, my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, who has been here in support. I hope that we do not have to come back—I hope the Government see sense on that amendment. That said, the Bill leaves this House in a much better state than it arrived in.

13:43

[Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]]

My Lords, from the Cross Benches I join previous speakers in thanking all the House of Lords officials and the Bill team.

As we have previously outlined, the Bill has a valid and important principle at its heart: the protection of national security and the lessening of economic interference in industrial control by hostile actors. Nobody would disagree with that intention, and the business community is no different. The CBI, of which I am president, supports those principles and stands ready to help make a success of the new regime. We have heard from a wide range of businesses likely to engage with the regime, many of which have complex international supply and value chains and all of which recognise the need for such regimes and already comply with counterpart regimes across the world.

However, to make a success of such a regime in a manner that reflects the approach of many of our international counterparts, the concerns of a wide subsection of the business community should continue to be heard. As I have noted previously, the extra- territoriality of the Bill, combined with no set de minimis function, could inadvertently lead to a real rise in bureaucracy at micro level and slow inward investment at macro level, so it is critical that the Government continue to engage with business and industry on the practical application of the regime. The fast-track processes and expert advisory panels that have been discussed are a very welcome move. The amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, on future reporting on the progress of the regime and on omitting the 15% threshold for significant control are also welcome.

Business welcomes the Bill, and I give credit to many noble Lords who have taken part, including the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson —I could go on. The more detailed reporting requirements provide more clarity on the average processing or decision time for notifications, whether mandatory or voluntary. Business has been concerned about the transparency of the statutory process, so we welcome the Government’s reflection of that in the Bill. Moreover, the removal of the 15% threshold for significant control is welcome, as, while such a percentage may represent a critical investment in other areas, it is unsuitable when applied to significant control more widely.

Looking ahead, the spirit of dialogue that has allowed such amendments to be moved should continue to ensure that both business and government are equipped to make a success of the regime. This Bill shows the House of Lords at its best: it has greater strength by far in depth and breadth of world-class expertise than any other Chamber in the world. This Bill has seen this skill applied on a cross-party basis, enabling this House to play its role as a revising Chamber to help change legislation for the better. This can only happen, however, if the Government are prepared to listen—which they have. We are grateful to the Government, and long may the spirit of collaboration continue.

13:46

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their kind words and renewed support for the Bill. Empathy is not something I normally get accused of—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, did not have his tongue in his cheek, so I will take that as a compliment. As I said earlier, there has been genuine cross-party enthusiasm for the Bill and, with the exception of one important detail, I have been heartened by the House’s desire to get it on the statute book. The debate has been excellent and shows the finest traditions of this Chamber.

I will certainly take up the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for my considerable reading list. My in-tray is very high at the moment, but I will look at the article he referred to, and I am sure that it will enhance my understanding of the subject. For a final time, therefore, I beg to move.

13:47

Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2021

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

13:47

Moved by

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 19 April be approved.

Instrument not yet reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, this Government are committed to taking all necessary steps to protect the people of this country. Tackling terrorism in all its guises is a key element of that mission. The threat level in the UK, which is set by the independent Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, remains at “substantial”. This means that a terrorist attack in our country is likely.

The constantly evolving nature of terrorism means that we continuously consider whether new action is necessary to ensure that our response is adapted to the threat picture. There are growing concerns about the spread of extremist ideologies, such as white supremacism, and their pernicious influence, particularly on children and young people. The danger posed by terrorist organisations varies from one group to another. There are those that recruit, radicalise, promote and encourage terrorism as well as those that prepare and commit terrible acts of violence against innocent members of the public.

In the internet age, extremist and terrorist groups can more easily and rapidly influence those vulnerable to their recruitment tactics. At the click of a button, they can spread their abhorrent world views to other groups in different countries, encouraging them to take up their mantle and engage in violence. We have a duty to our allies, as well as to our own people, to tackle those groups that inspire and co-ordinate international terror. While we can never entirely eliminate the threat from terrorism, we will always do all we can to minimise the danger it poses and keep our public safe.

Some 76 international terrorist organisations are currently proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. Thanks to the dedication, courage and skill of counterterrorism policing and our security and intelligence services, most of these groups have never carried out a successful attack on UK soil. Proscription is a powerful tool for degrading terrorist organisations, as noble Lords know.

The groups we now propose to add to the list of terrorist organisations, amending Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000, are Atomwaffen Division, or AWD, and its alias, National Socialist Order, or NSO. AWD is a predominately US-based white supremacist group active under that guise between 2015 and 2020. NSO is the alias of AWD, has claimed to be AWD’s successor group and remains active. The group’s actions, which seek to divide communities and stir up hatred, are entirely contrary to the interests of our nation.

Given the wide-ranging impact of these powers, the Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe only after thoroughly reviewing the available evidence on an organisation. This includes open-source material, intelligence material and advice that reflects consultation across government, including with the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The cross-government Proscription Review Group supports the Home Secretary in her decision-making process. Her decision to proscribe is taken only after great care and consideration of the particular case, and it is appropriate that it must be approved by both Houses.

Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary believes that AWD, including through the activities of its alias, NSO, is concerned in terrorism and the discretionary factors weigh in favour of proscription. Although, as noble Lords will know, I cannot comment on specific intelligence, I can provide the House with a summary of the group’s activities. AWD celebrates a collection of noxious essays that advocate the use of violence to bring about a fascist, white ethnostate by initiating the collapse of modern society by means of a race war. This ideology has become known as “accelerationism”. AWD’s online propaganda has encouraged and promoted terrorist acts, and this content likely remains influential among accelerationist terrorist groups. We know that AWD has inspired, at least in part, several loosely affiliated franchise groups abroad, including Feuerkrieg Division, which was proscribed in 2020.

In March 2020, AWD claimed that it had disbanded following pressure from US law enforcement agencies. In July 2020, NSO announced itself online as AWD’s successor. NSO adheres to the same abhorrent ideology and has similar accelerationist aims as it did when it was called AWD. Under the name NSO, the organisation has publicly dedicated itself to bringing about white- power Governments “by any means necessary”, and it is the Government’s belief that it is almost certain that “any means necessary” is intended to be understood as endorsing violence.

Our strategy to combat terrorism looks at the full spectrum of activity. It is absolutely right that this includes confronting, square on, the threat from groups who call for violence and mass murder, and who unlawfully glorify horrific terrorist acts, so that they are prevented from continuing to stir up hatred. When groups without a physical presence in the UK are proscribed, particularly groups such as AWD which have an established online presence, it is important to consider the wider impact that proscription has. By proscribing white supremacist, accelerationist terrorist groups with like-minded ideologies, such as Sonnenkrieg Division, Feuerkrieg Division and Atomwaffen Division, we underline our commitment to ensuring that the UK is a hostile environment for individuals involved in white supremacist or accelerationist terrorism.

Our objective is to ensure that there are no safe spaces online for terrorists to promote or share their extreme views. In proscribing AWD and NSO, we send a clear signal that the dissemination of the group’s online propaganda is unacceptable. The Home Office continues to work closely with law enforcement, our international partners and tech companies, including through the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism, also known as GIFCT, to collaboratively tackle the spread of terrorist content online. We know that proscription of groups helps tech companies to better tackle terrorist material on their platforms. I believe that there is a strong case for the Government to proscribe AWD and list NSO as an alias. It will build upon the robust action the Government have already taken by proscribing National Action, Sonnenkrieg Division and Feuerkrieg Division.

Our message is clear: we will always take every possible action to counter the threat from those who hate the values that we cherish. The safety and security of the public is our number one priority, and I commend this order to the House.

13:56

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, my comments will be brief. As a law officer, I had to take an interest and advise on many aspects of terrorism matters. We are debating a very narrow order, otherwise I would have raised questions following the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ report as far back as 2009-10 on special advocates, who I appointed for the first time. I chose them very carefully. The Joint Committee was critical of their ability to operate properly. I would have asked for an update, but I presume that they are still there and there will be another occasion when I can seek to do this.

The noble Baroness carefully spelled out the objects of the order, and I am grateful to her. I welcome the updating of the names of organisations from which we are in danger. If we are to have an efficient system of proscription, it is important that it is, first, speedily updated; secondly, relevant and accurate as far as names and descriptions are concerned; and lastly, achieves the object of being preventive. It is the preventive nature of the order that I particularly welcome.

We are referring now to three organisations named in accordance with Section 3 of the Terrorism Act. Some 24 orders have been laid already, two of them in 2019, and in accordance with Section 3, those we wish to add are named. I deliberately will not give the advantage of further publicity to the activities of the one organisation that caught my eye in particular, Sonnenkrieg Division. We are dealing with the activities of such organisations today. Therefore, I will not give any additional publicity to the matters that have already been set out. I welcome the order very much and I support it.

13:58

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order, but I confess to being somewhat confused. Before I get on to that, I pay tribute the work that our security services and police do to keep us safe in the face of a substantial threat.

On 27 February 2020, the Government brought forward a similar order, proscribing the white supremacist group Sonnenkrieg Division—Sonnenkrieg means “sun war” in German—or SKD. My confusion is because SKD is apparently the British branch of Atomwaffen Division—Atomwaffen means “nuclear weapons” in German—which is based in the southern United States and is heavily influenced by extremist Islamist ideology in that it encourages neo-Nazis to kill and die for the cause. As I said almost 14 months ago in this House, the overlap between extremist Islamists, who advocate the violent overthrow of democracy and liberal values, and neo-Nazis is worrying. One of Atomwaffen Division’s followers apparently sees ISIL as preferable to multi- culturalism and liberal values.

As the Minister said, it recruits young people and has been active on university campuses in the United States. Some members of the British SKD convicted of terrorism offences were teenagers. Will the Minister explain why the Government are only now proscribing an organisation—Atomwaffen Division—that even Wikipedia says is also known as National Socialist Order, whose British branch was proscribed 14 months ago?

In the Explanatory Memorandum, the Government say that an instrument such as this

“which imposes duties that are significantly more onerous than before should not usually be brought into force earlier than 21 days after it is made … However, any significant delay between the laying and coming into force of the Order would alert the organisation to its impending proscription and may result in pre-emptive action by the organisation’s members designed to circumvent the provisions of TACT and/or the criminal law.”

Can the Minister explain, given that the British branch of Atomwaffen Division was proscribed 14 months ago, and that the National Socialist Order is named in Wikipedia as an alias, why it would come as a surprise to anybody that the parent organisation is now being proscribed? The only surprise is that the parent organisation, the British branch of which was proscribed 14 months ago, is only now being proscribed.

I accept that one of the factors considered by the Secretary of State is the extent of the organisation’s presence in the UK, but another is the need to support international partners in the fight against terrorism. Surely, the United States of America is one of those partners. Bearing in mind that Atomwaffen Division is based in the southern United States, why was it not proscribed at the same time as the British branch of the same organisation, the Sonnenkrieg Division, 14 months ago? Indeed, the Explanatory Memorandum says:

“The Home Secretary believes that AWD is almost certainly now operating under the name NSO in the United States”


in the same way as Atomwaffen Division was operating in United States between 2015 and 2020. Yet it is only now that Atomwaffen Division is being proscribed—more than a year since it claimed to have disbanded following pressure from US law enforcement.

Of course, we support this order, but we also have serious questions as to why it has taken so long to proscribe Atomwaffen Division and its alias, National Socialist Order.

14:02

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, on behalf of the Official Opposition, I want to make it very clear that we offer our full support to the Government on all matters of national security and public safety and in ensuring that the public and our communities are safe. Combating terrorism, no matter where it comes from, will always have the full support of these Benches.

It is right that the organisation before us today is outlawed, and we welcome and support this order proscribing it. It sends a strong message that racism, fascism and the glorification of terrorism will simply not be tolerated on our streets and in our society. Like others, I pay tribute to our security services, the counterterrorism police and others for all the work they do to keep us and our communities safe. We will never know all the work they do to keep us safe and we very much thank them for that.

This order will give some clarity and direction to the counterterrorism police for the work that they do. As the Minister set out, this organisation—Atomwaffen Division or AWD—is a white supremacist organisation. In recent years, we have seen a proliferation of these organisations and groups turning up in the UK, and it is right that we deal with them. Just hearing what the Minister has told us is disturbing enough, along with the material that they write about bringing about a “white ethnostate” instigated by the collapse of society through a race war. Everything we stand for as British citizens—our country and our values—is opposed to these ideas. It is vile propaganda, and I am delighted that the organisations will be outlawed today.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made a fair point about the different forms of the organisation, asking why we did not deal with all of them at the same time. If the Minister could help us out, it would be interesting to hear the explanation. I accept that the organisations try to change—like a chameleon—by having one name first and then changing to something different, but it is fair to ask why they were not all captured at the same time. I accept that the Home Secretary has to look at a number of factors, and perhaps that is the reason why, but that is the only question I have for the Minister. We very much support and welcome the order today, and offer the Government our full support.

14:05

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in favour of this proscription. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, made the pertinent point that these actions are preventive—and, my goodness, the security services have certainly prevented some terrorist action over the last few years. Like the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy, I pay tribute to them.

The noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Paddick, pressed me on why we are bringing these measures forward now. Obviously, there is information that the Home Secretary receives that I cannot discuss, and she will make decisions based on the intelligence and legal information that she receives. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, we do not think that SKD was actually the British branch of AWD. It might have been influenced by AWD, but we understand that it is not the same group. They are all equally awful, but we do not think that those links are there. With that, I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

14:06

Sitting suspended.

Arrangement of Business

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Lords Chamber

Announcement

14:15

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing. The time limit for the following debate is five hours.

Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

14:15

Moved by

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

That this House takes note of the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to open this important debate in your Lordships’ House on the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy.

As noble Lords will be aware, the Prime Minister published the review on 16 March this year. It is the product of more than a year’s work across government in consultation with a huge range of academics, allies and external organisations. It is the most comprehensive articulation of foreign policy and approach to national security published by a British Government in decades. It also sets out the Prime Minister’s vision for a stronger and more prosperous union in 2030 and outlines the actions we will take at home and abroad to realise that vision.

The integrated review outlines how the nature and distribution of global power is changing. It identifies evolving trends in the world that will shape the next decade, including geopolitical and geo-economic shifts, such as China’s increasing power and assertiveness and the growing importance of the Indo-Pacific region, which are subjects we discuss quite regularly in your Lordships’ House; the increasing competition between states over interests, norms and values, with authoritarian states and malign actors seeking to undermine the democratic systems and openness that underpin our way of life; rapid technological change in areas such as artificial intelligence, cyber and data, which is totally reshaping the threats we face and the wide scope of opportunities that lie ahead; and, finally, the transnational and existential threats to our climate, biodiversity and health, illustrated so acutely by the challenge of the Covid-19 pandemic. These threats affect everyone everywhere, and they risk reversing decades of shared progress.

Faced with this clear analysis of the trials we face today and the challenges of tomorrow, we cannot turn inward as a country and hope to prosper. We must be energetic and build alliances to counter and overcome these challenges, demonstrating the full capabilities of global Britain. To do this, we will focus on four key areas where the United Kingdom can make a difference.

First, we will grow the UK as a great science and technology power. We will ensure that our current strategic advantage translates into a mastery of the technologies that are central to geopolitical competition and our future prosperity, including, of course, areas such as artificial intelligence and renewables. To achieve this, we are backing talent and expertise across the country. We are supporting scientists, researchers, investors and innovators. We are working with regulators and standards bodies to help shape international norms. We are leveraging talent and ideas from academia and the private sector, helping manufacturers take their innovations through to market. In this respect, we are investing at least £800 million to set up an independent body for high-risk, high-reward research. The advanced research and invention agency will back breakthrough technologies and basic research through experimentation. We are growing our global network of innovation partnerships, putting science and technology at the heart of our alliances and partnerships worldwide, from security to free trade agreements.

Our second priority is to reinvigorate the international order in support of the interests of open and democratic societies. We will play a more active part in international institutions to reinforce and reshape the international order of the future, extending it in areas such as cyberspace and space, while protecting and strengthening democratic values. We will promote trade, because it creates jobs and prosperity at home and abroad and offers the developing world a more compelling model of growth. We are also pursuing a values-driven trade policy to make the world stronger, safer and more prosperous. In less than two years, we have already secured trade agreements with 66 countries, and we have signed a trade and co-operation agreement with our allies and neighbours in the European Union. We are also very much deeply committed to multilateralism. The United Kingdom is proud to have played its part, both as one of the UN’s founding members and as a permanent member of the Security Council. Indeed, noble Lords will recall that, earlier this year, we hosted Secretary-General Guterres and his team—in what turned out to be, unfortunately, a virtual visit—to mark the end of UN 75.

Thirdly, we will defend the British people by taking a more robust approach to security and deterrence, by defending British people abroad and by building up better governance abroad. We are increasing our investment in defence to 2.2% of GDP. Our Armed Forces will be more persistently engaged overseas and better prepared to meet emerging threats with full-spectrum capabilities, including in space and cyberspace. We will take a more integrated approach to government work on conflict and instability, addressing the drivers of conflict such as bad governance and strengthening the resilience of fragile countries to external interference.

Finally, and equally importantly, global Britain will be a force for good in the world, building resilience both at home and overseas as a defence against the threats we all face. Tackling climate change and biodiversity loss is now our top international priority, supported, as noble Lords will recognise, by the £11.6 billion we have committed to international climate finance, and our 10-point green plan to reach net zero by 2050. We will use COP 26 in Glasgow later this year to encourage direct action to reach a zero-carbon global economy, to protect and restore biodiversity and to help vulnerable countries adapt and boost their resilience to climate change.

I mentioned the Covid-19 pandemic; we are working collaboratively with key partners and agencies and the United Nations to beat Covid-19 by using our G7 presidency to accelerate equitable access to vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics across the world. We are also seeking reform of the World Health Organization, but this is not just about calling for reform; it will be supported by our 30% increase in core funding over the next four years, which will take our contribution to the World Health Organization to £340 million. We are establishing a global hub to provide countries with a single source of intelligence on the human, animal and environmental risks they face.

As a force for good, we will also continue to stand up for open societies and democratic values: the values and issues that matter to us most, such as freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom to choose. We will continue to defend press and media freedom, and we will strengthen and promote freedom of religion or belief, including through an international ministerial conference scheduled to be held in the UK in 2022. We were the first European country to announce sanctions against the regime in Belarus, and we have introduced measures to ensure that British organisations are not complicit in, or profiting from, human rights violations in Xinjiang. More widely, we will continue to promote effective governance, democratic institutions and the rule of law, including by bolstering our support for election observations and by introducing a new global sanctions regime on corruption.

We will use our leadership on international development to help tackle global poverty and achieve the sustainable development goals by 2030. We will continue to work for gender equality and our target of getting 40 million more girls into school in low and middle-income countries by 2025. By creating the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, we have combined our aid with our diplomatic clout and are focusing our spending on where the UK can make a difference, while delivering on wider objectives that serve our national interest.

No single country could achieve these objectives alone; as I have often said from the Dispatch Box, collective action with our allies and partners is vitally important. We will lead by example where we have unique or significant strengths and identify other goals where we are better placed to support and work constructively and collaboratively with our allies. These alliances will help sustain an international order in which open societies and economies can flourish.

The wisdom of this joined-up approach was evident during my recent visit to India. From Chandigarh to Chennai, I saw how our ambitious vision of global Britain, coupled with a clear-eyed analysis of the UK’s place in the world, is setting the tone for a productive and progressive alliance with a key strategic partner. Increasing our engagement in the Indo-Pacific region is a major priority that we have identified in the review, including through our ambition to become a dialogue partner to the ASEAN group of nations.

We will also develop stronger partnerships around the world. Building from the bedrock of our traditional alliances with the United States and Europe, and as the leading European ally within NATO, this includes our current work with allies and through NATO to deter Russia, particularly with regard to Ukraine to de-escalate the situation.

We also believe in being a partner of choice in Africa, from deepening trade and business links that support quality jobs, at home and across Africa, to working together to champion girls’ education as a way to unlock opportunity. When you educate a girl, you change the future for her family, her community, her town or city and for her country.

We will foster thriving relationships in the Middle East based on trade, green innovation and science.

The UK has had the privilege of serving as Commonwealth chair-in-office since 2018—as Minister for the Commonwealth, this has been a particular priority for me. The Commonwealth is a constellation of 53 sovereign and equal member states and remains an important institution in supporting an open and resilient international order. It brings together states with a national interest in promoting democracy and ideals and values that we share, sustaining individual freedoms, driving sustainable development and enabling cross-border trade.

We will do more to adapt to China’s growing impact, managing disagreements, defending our values, and co-operating where our interests align—and, yes, that includes pursuing a positive economic relationship, while also tackling global challenges such as climate change.

We are clear-eyed about the challenges we face, but we are also optimistic about our future. We are an active European country, with a global perspective, bringing nations together to solve the problems that matter most to our people, and to improve their lives and those of citizens around the world.

In conclusion, the integrated review sends a message about what the United Kingdom stands for as an independent actor on the global stage. It is our commitment to work with our allies and partners as a force for good.

To reflect on the past year alone, we have introduced a UK Magnitsky sanctions law to target individuals guilty of the most serious human rights violations abroad. I acknowledge the contribution of many in your Lordships’ House that has strengthened our work in this area and built the momentum behind the introduction of that law. We took the bold step to issue an invitation to this country to the people of Hong Kong oppressed by Beijing. Again, I know that that is an important priority for many in your Lordships’ House. We set an example to the world with our contribution to COVAX, the global vaccine programme for the developing world. We have continued to be one of the most generous contributors of foreign aid, and we were the first industrialised nation to set a legally binding national target to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

This is global Britain. The integrated review builds on this foundation. It unleashes our independent foreign policy outside the European Union and sets out our vision for the next decade, based on our values and grounded in the UK national interest. This is our mission: global Britain as a force for good in the world. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

Before I call the next speaker—the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe—the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, the Chief Whip, will say a little about speaking times.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, as this is a time-limited debate with a large number of speakers, I remind noble Lords in advance of the four- minute speaking limit for Back-Bench speeches.

14:30

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, when the integrated review was announced by the Prime Minister, we welcomed it. We wanted it to succeed, to keep our citizens safe and to secure Britain as a moral force for good in the world. But, after its publication, the chorus of concern has only grown. To put it simply, it is a plan for fewer troops, fewer ships and fewer planes. There is no assessment of current or future capability, no strategic principles and nothing about how the Ministry of Defence should be structured to best provide national security.

For this speech, I will focus on defence, and my noble friend Lord Collins will focus on the foreign and development policy components—but, of course, they are interrelated. On defence, I start with the Prime Minister’s comments. He said that the integrated review would end what he described as an “era of retreat”. The review and subsequent defence Command Paper made it clear that the threats facing the UK are “increasing and diversifying”. Despite these promises and expanding threats, the review is set to repeat the mistakes of the past.

The Prime Minister even broke an election promise by announcing that the size of the Army specifically will be cut by 10,000 by 2025. We urge the Government to think again. Former military chiefs, including the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Richards, have said that further cuts to the Army would mean that the UK was

“no longer taken seriously as a military power”

and would

“damage our relationship with the US and our position in NATO”.

A slew of Navy and RAF retirements have been announced. These include “at least” two Type 23 frigates, well before new frigates will be brought into service, Typhoon tranche 1 aircraft and Hawk T1 training aircraft. We urge the Government to think again.

I will also touch on threats. The review outlines a number of threats to the UK, but fails to present a coherent strategy for deterring them. Rightly, the Command Paper names Russia as the

“greatest nuclear, conventional military and sub-threshold threat to European security.”

This is evidenced by the build-up of 100,000 Russian troops on the border of eastern Ukraine but, despite their own warning, the Government still have not fully implemented any of the Russia report’s 23 recommendations, 18 months after the report was completed. I ask the Minister a simple question: why?

With the integrated review, Ministers are making the same mistake—responding to increasing threats with more cuts. Of course, we must develop new technologies in domains such as cyberspace and artificial intelligence, but new technologies have always been harnessed to strengthen our Armed Forces; they will never entirely replace the need for boots on the ground.

14:34

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, we waited a long time for this review. What arrived has some extraordinary omissions, contradictions and, frankly, double-speak. The words on the page do not square with the actions that the Government are taking.

We are, of course, a smaller player outside the EU, more dependent on the US and their interests and buffeted by China. The review says that we are in a multipolar world—indeed so. One of those poles is the EU, and yet there is an EU-shaped hole here. The review rightly emphasises that we achieve more by working with others. Why then is there nothing here on how we work with the EU properly or rebuild our relationship?

The review emphasises an “Indo-Pacific tilt”. Of course, this region will be very important for trade, and challenging with the rise of China, but being in the EU never stopped trade with China, or India or Indonesia, and would have given us a stronger base for tackling China’s threats.

The review was pre-empted by the merger of the FCO and DfID, without having worked out any strategic reason for this. Then, during the pandemic, which demonstrates how interlinked we are globally, there was the decision to cut ODA. Both actions undermine our outstanding previous reputation in international development and poverty reduction. Much of the review was clearly written before that cut was decided, and this undermines the rhetoric throughout.

There is something of an industrial strategy here, at the same time that we learn that we are not really going to have one. It says that we need to be a science and technology superpower. That was at the heart of the 2012 industrial strategy and helped to lay the foundations for our strength in the biotech sector, but those cutting ODA clearly did not know how it supported the science and tech sector, and that cuts would savagely undermine the review’s claims.

See, too, soft power. The review rightly recognises both the British Council and the BBC. It says:

“The BBC is the most trusted broadcaster worldwide”.


Yet the British Council is closing offices because of cuts and the BBC is under systematic attack from the Government.

The review does not even try to define global Britain, which is what the Government say we are post Brexit. I quote:

“What Global Britain means in practice is best defined by actions rather than words.”


Indeed: we have cut aid, threatened to break international law and lost allies. Our effort on

“global leadership on reducing space threats”

amounts to a UN General Assembly resolution. We appointed

“the UK’s first Special Envoy for Famine Prevention”,

but cut assistance to Yemen, as Mark Lowcock said, to

“balance the books on the backs of the starving people of Yemen”.

The review says that we will uphold human rights, but we have agreed an unconstrained FTA with Cambodia, despite human rights abuses, in contrast to the EU’s approach.

The review says that

“the UK will remain deeply invested in the security and prosperity of Europe”,

but we have slashed support to the Balkans. There is a chapter entitled “Arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation: our commitment to international treaties”—and then it says that we will increase our nuclear warheads. George Orwell would have been impressed.

I welcome this review for being useful, as we are better able to hold the Government to account on what they say that they want to do. What is extraordinary is the contrast between that rhetoric and the reality of the Government’s actions.

14:38

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

I start by saying that the integrated review is a good piece of work. It sets the strategic scene well and I agree with many of the conclusions that it draws. There are inevitably areas of detail that merit more examination and further debate but, alas, there is no opportunity for that today. Given the short time available, I shall make just two points.

First, despite the much-discussed tilt to the Indo-Pacific, the review correctly identifies Russia as the most immediate threat to our security. The maintenance of our commitment to NATO, the associated transatlantic relationship and the continued development of our military capabilities, including in new fields such as cyber, are therefore crucial. But we will continue to face challenges from Russia below the threshold of conventional war. Success with these requires robust international responses, particularly among our European neighbours, but such responses will become increasingly difficult to agree, as issues of security become more entangled with those of trade and supply, and short-term national concerns trump regional solidarity. Nord Stream 2 and its possible effect on Europe’s ability to respond effectively to Russian adventurism is a case in point.

How do we rise to this challenge? The integrated review says that the UK will work with its European partners “where our interests coincide”. Surely there can be no greater example of mutual self-interest than the peace and stability of our own continent. But our ability to influence our European partners has undoubtedly been weakened by Brexit. We are no longer directly involved in the engine rooms where EU foreign and security policy proposals are developed, and our high-level relationships with our neighbours are subject to the tensions and frictions that will arise from time to time, as a consequence of our divergence from previously common positions. These are now inescapable facts of life that will require determined and sustained effort if we are to counteract them, but the review has little or nothing to say about how this is to be done.

My second point concerns China. The review says:

“We will continue to pursue a positive trade and investment relationship … while ensuring our national security and values are protected.”


This is likely to prove an almost impossible balancing act and we need to be clearer about the choices we will have to make and where our true interests lie. China patently does not wish to be constrained by the post-1945 global order. Whether it wants to dictate the course of other nations may be open to question; that it wants to be free of constraints imposed by others is beyond doubt. We are now engaged in a global contest to determine the rules by which international behaviour will be governed for most of the remainder of this century. The outcome of that struggle is crucial to our national interest.

The Government have rightly said that the UK should help to shape those rules, but this will mean opposing China. It will require us to be part of a grouping that can muster sufficient economic strength, military power and technological advantage to influence decisions in a way that runs counter to China’s purposes. As a proud and modern superpower, China will not take such opposition lying down. There will be consequences. We should, of course, seek to trade with China and to engage with it on important issues such as climate change, but we should also expect our stances on global governance and human rights to disrupt those efforts, perhaps severely. Our strategy should make clear that we place long-term benefit over short-term advantage and that we are prepared to face up to the difficulties that this will cause.

14:42

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the International Relations and Defence Committee, which I chair, has discussed the proposals in the integrated review. My comments today reflect the views expressed on just three issues.

We welcome the drive to achieve better co-ordination and consistency between Britain’s international departments. Foreign policy should balance the interests and values of the UK. That objective is evident in the Government’s overall approach—[Inaudible]— prosperity, security and democracy. We feel, however, that the review itself is too broad-brush, failing sufficiently to prioritise and give a clear indication of where and when the UK will expend both time and resources. That is even more vital at a time when the Government have decided to break the UK’s statutory commitment to spend 0.7% of GNI on ODA. The review states:

“We will continue to support stability in Afghanistan, as part of a wider coalition”


and:

“Under persistent engagement, our armed forces will continue to … provide support to the Government of Afghanistan”.


In the light of the announcement that UK troops will leave Afghanistan in September, plus the reduction in ODA spend, what are the consequences for the Government’s commitments in the review? What priority will the Government give to support for the Afghan Government?

We are also concerned by a lack of consistency in sections of the report. The tilt to the Indo-Pacific was heavily briefed before publication, but the review identifies Russia, not China, as

“the most acute direct threat to the UK”.

There are some standard lines on support for NATO and European partners, but the review offers little on the importance of working alongside like-minded countries with which we share a neighbourhood. As economic pressures build, of course we understand why the Government are rushing towards an Indo-Pacific focus and new partners further afield. However, it is essential to nurture our alliances with nearer friends too.

There is also a lack of consistency in the approach to relations with countries in Africa. The regions of Africa prioritised in the review are not consistent with the Government’s evidence given to our committee about their strategic approach focusing on security in the Sahel. There is a glancing reference to the Sahel in half a sentence and two brief mentions of Mali, but that is it. We are not given reasons for the change in focus. It is east Africa which is prioritised; this is new. The case for closer engagement in east Africa would not be difficult to make, but the Government simply do not do so.

A final matter of concern is the decision to increase the UK’s nuclear stockpile. There could hardly be a worse time to do so, just months before the RevCon of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. If there is a plausible rationale for that significant policy change, perhaps based on maintaining the credibility of our nuclear deterrent, the Government should make that case. They have not. Their decision undermines Britain’s leverage to encourage other nuclear weapon states to exercise restraint in their modernisation programmes.

I hope that the more detailed plans which should surely flow from the review will focus better on prioritisation and resourcing to deliver the Government’s ambitions for a global Britain. We all need that to happen.

14:46

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I will confine myself to making three points on nuclear deterrence, a policy I have long supported both inside and outside government. I did not hear the Minister mention it today, but I have concerns about the review in this area, some of which reflect what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has just said. First, page 76 of the integrated review approximates to our present policy by saying:

“The UK will not use, or threaten to use, nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 1968.”


However, it then goes on to say, no more than two sentences later:

“However, we reserve the right to review this assurance if the future threat of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and biological capabilities, or emerging technologies that could have a comparable impact, makes it necessary.”


This raises a question. Does it actually mean that we hold open the use of nuclear weapons in response to any form of aggression, including, perhaps, through technology or cyber? Will the Minister explain the meaning of this section? In asking that, I understand that ambiguity has a part to play in nuclear deterrence but, if ambiguity is stretched so far that it becomes ubiquitous, it is in danger of becoming confusing and, frankly, incredible. That, in turn, then undermines rather than reinforces nuclear deterrence.

Secondly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, just said, and as my noble friend Lord Browne recently and accurately pointed out, by raising the cap on the numbers of our nuclear arsenal we have effectively abdicated our leadership role in nuclear disarmament, not least by announcing a policy change that runs completely counter to President Biden’s commitment to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in national security policies. In the integrated review, the Government have provided for fewer soldiers, fewer planes, fewer ships, but more nuclear warheads. Perhaps the Minister could tell the House, first, what the rationale is for that and, secondly, what consultation took place with the Biden Administration on this change?

We live in an age in which the threats and dangers are more complex and interrelated than ever before. Only this week US Strategic Command warned:

“The spectrum of conflict today is neither linear nor predictable. We must account for the possibility of conflict leading to conditions which could very rapidly drive an adversary to consider nuclear use as their least bad option.”


In this context, will the Minister explain how the decision to increase our nuclear stockpile, and to potentially extend the threat of a nuclear response to an apparently unlimited range of conflict situations, is supposed to strengthen nuclear deterrence?

Finally, I draw the Minister’s attention to a paper issued this week by the European Leadership Network, which pointed out:

“The ability for the leaders of nuclear-weapons states … to communicate personally, unambiguously, and with certainty in all conditions has eroded as their number … has increased”


and technology has evolved. Astonishingly, in an age when any nuclear crisis or conflict could not be contained with certainty to two states, there are currently no multilateral communication lines that can be trusted. All major nuclear risk reduction efforts under way ahead of the NPT review conference have recommended that the permanent five work on improving crisis communication technology. What have the Government done to assist this process?

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

Before I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, it might be helpful to read out the scratches so that the speakers who follow them will be aware and can make plans. The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, has scratched, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the noble Lords, Lord Sarfraz, Lord Walney, Lord Hannan, Lord Berkeley and Lord Desai.

14:51

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the telling phrase is in part V of the review. On page 97, paragraph 2, it says:

“‘Integration’ is not a new theme in the UK’s approach to national security, although the language used to describe it has varied over time.”


Language is important. On development co-operation, the language of a United Kingdom Prime Minister, at the start of this, described UK development assistance as

“a great cashpoint in the sky”.

That was the message from this Government to the world. On page 5, the language on aid is

“we will return to our commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on development when the fiscal situation allows.”

I have asked the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, three times, including today, what these fiscal criteria are, and there has been no answer. The Government either know and are refusing to tell Parliament—which is an undemocratic outrage—or this is just more disingenuous language that warrants no trust.

Only one part of the integrated review has been underpinned by law, and the Government are acting unlawfully in contradiction to it, by halving UK bilateral aid assistance. How integrated is it, when the Government say it will be a soft power—as my noble friend Lady Northover indicated—but, in the preceding three years, the Government said the soft power strategy was imminent, only for it ditched as Brexit made it inconvenient?

The Africa strategy that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred to was imminent but was never published. Theresa May promised that the UK would be the largest investor in Africa. China took note because of its strategic debt policy. China noticed even more when Boris Johnson ditched that approach. What is our approach to investment in Africa? What guides us on this? Annex B, on evidence and engagement, says in paragraph 2 that

“we undertook a systematic programme of engagement, analysis and challenge.”

On the breaking of the law and cutting UK bilateral aid by the greatest amount ever, the statement is not true—especially on Yemen. On 3 March, I asked the Minister what impact assessment had been carried out on halving support for Yemen. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, refused to answer. On Tuesday, Chris Bold, the development director for Yemen at the FCDO, told the Commons committee:

“We haven’t done an impact assessment.”


Halving support for the poorest people in the world, during the worst humanitarian crisis on earth, is a moral stain on this Government. Nothing in this integrated review means anything if we can do this without an assessment of the impact on them, our global reputation, and our partners, by the resignation of leadership. If one of the richest countries in the world can halve support to the poorest people in the world, there is no moral compass to guide anything else in this review. We are not just cutting aid; we are cutting co-operation. We are not just cutting by half our position as a donor; we are a less reliable partner to all those we have worked with to this point.

14:55

[Lord Ricketts (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a strategic adviser to Lockheed Martin UK. I know how hard it is to conduct a review such as this, having co-ordinated the equivalent document in 2010. I pay tribute to Professor John Bew and to all the officials who produced it. I agree with the Minister that it is the most comprehensive survey yet of the UK’s national security challenges. It also gives a convincing analysis of a world that is fracturing into blocs and heading towards systemic competition. I welcome the confirmation that European security, NATO and Britain’s partnership with the US will, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said, be at the heart of our foreign policy.

The Indo-Pacific passage turned out to be more measured than the advance hype suggested. Some increase in diplomatic activity, economic engagement and military presence makes sense, but we have to be realistic: Britain will only ever be a secondary player in Asian security. The passage on China recognises that we must treat the country both as a strategic competitor and a necessary partner on trade and climate change. I agree that that is the difficult balancing act we need to perform.

I want to underline three areas that I see as main weaknesses in the review. First, it is an impressively wide-ranging document, but it is not a strategy. The US historian John Lewis Gaddis defines strategy as

“the alignment of potentially unlimited aspirations with necessarily limited capabilities.”

This review suggests British leadership in a whole series of areas but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, observed, it makes no effort to set priorities. In the 2010 and 2015 reviews, we published a prioritised list of the risks facing Britain, which at least offered some guide to resource allocation. This review is, in effect, a long laundry list of worthy goals, leaving the real choices to be made by Ministers later.

Secondly, it is not truly integrated. There is a large gap between the words of the review and the Government’s actions. This is clearest in the ambition for the UK to be a “soft power superpower”. That is a noble aim, but the problem is that the Government’s actions are undercutting it. Take development policy: DfID was a great soft power ambassador for Britain; it showed that we were practising the values we preached. Reducing the aid programme to 0.5% of a smaller GDP means making more than £4 billion of cuts from one financial year to the next. It is the speed as well as the scale of those cuts that is going to have such a disruptive impact. Since the UK already has some long-term commitments to multilateral organisations such as the World Bank, the burden will fall heaviest on the bilateral programmes in countries in desperate need, such as Yemen, Sudan, Somalia and Syria. I felt that the Foreign Secretary’s Statement yesterday disguised the extent of those cuts, but they are inevitable. They will mean stopping projects for humanitarian support, clean water, education and nutrition. Once staff are sacked it will be very difficult to get them restarted.

At the same time, the British Army is to create new Ranger battalions to train and mentor the armed forces of less advanced partners. I fear we risk cutting development spending and increasing military presence in the same regions, if not the same countries. The Minister might wish to explain how that is an integrated approach.

Thirdly and finally, in two sentences, we are proposing to work with European partners but not the EU. How can we credibly aspire to be a superpower in soft power, science and technology, reshaping the world order, if we do not have a functional relationship with the EU? We will not have a real national strategy until we can overcome this taboo.

14:59

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con) [V]]

My Lords, your Lordships should be well pleased by one aspect of this review, because it reflects and draws on two seminal House of Lords reports, Persuasion and Power in the Modern World in 2014 and UK Foreign Policy in a Shifting World Order in 2018, which urged policymakers and the then Foreign & Commonwealth Office to reappraise the UK’s position in a totally changed world landscape.

I welcome especially the review’s recommended tilt to Asia, including not just China but Japan, India and all the ASEAN counties, in terms of trade and security—a shift which some of us have been urging for decades, long before Brexit, to what is now by far the most vibrant region on the planet. The balanced approach to the tricky China containment issue, which has already been referred to, is also welcome, instead of some of the shotgun-like Sinophobia that has been served up to us from both sides of the Atlantic, which China simply brushes off. Almost every democracy, and almost certainly every Commonwealth member state, is looking for the right balance in dealing with the Chinese. Incidentally, I hope that New Zealand is not going wobbly on this need for developing a robust common approach.

The review is also good on recognising how technology has changed, the nature of warfare and defence—how, in the age of drones, cyber and artificial intelligence, troop power will have to be more skilled but with fewer numbers on the ground—and how soft power and smart power now play a central role in UK foreign policy in a networked and multipolar world, just as we urged seven years ago. The whole of society is now involved in a permanent kind of warfare, requiring entirely new kinds of defence, which some critics frankly do not yet seem to have grasped. Incidentally, I have to ask why the biggest modern soft power network of all, the modern Commonwealth, which the Minister has served so supremely well, gets so very little acknowledgement and no serious appraisal in this review until page 61.

Where the authors go wrong is in not understanding the full nature of the changed relationship with the United States. There is still far too much of a tone of the old followership with America, rather than partnership in the network age. The review seems far too influenced by US think tanks, with their dated obsession with great power dominance and rivalries. Power, trade and even dollar dominance are shifting away from the West, but not much of that seems to come through in the review at all.

Lastly, it has to be asked who on earth decided to put the lifting of the nuclear warhead cap, which goes flatly against NPT doctrine, in with the publication of this review. That inevitably distorted its public reception and its main messages. It really was a very unwise thing to do and spoiled a good, if belated, contribution to our reappraisal of Britain’s position in a transformed world order.

15:03

[Lord Hain (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, as this review sadly confirms, rather than emerging from Brexit as global Britain, the country now inhabits a kind of diplomatic limbo. The omission, at the UK’s insistence, of foreign policy and defence from the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU, together with the failure to agree a trade deal with the US reflecting the Biden Administration’s concerns about Brexit and its potential consequences for the island of Ireland, mean that the Government are left aspiring to a global role without having secured the alliances or the resources they need.

The Government say that they want to tilt their international relationships in the direction of Asia—a region that has recently provided about 20% of the UK’s trade, as opposed to almost half with the EU. The PM’s cancelled visit to India was planned for this purpose. However, outside the huge EU single market, the UK frankly ranks as a mid-sized power and lacks negotiating leverage. Britain is just 18th on the list of trading partners with India, a traditionally protectionist economy.

In view of the current massing of troops at the Ukrainian border, the review rightly identifies Russia under Vladimir Putin as an active threat. However, the Conservative Party continues to accept donations from London-based Russian oligarchs, and it has failed to implement any of the recommendations of the long-delayed Russia report of the British Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, finally published in July last year.

By contrast, despite major human rights violations in Hong Kong and Xinjiang, China is described in the review as merely a “systemic challenge”. The decision to go for a hard Brexit, which cuts off trade links with the EU, increases incentives to trade with China. The Government have been using heavy-handed tactics to block the genocide amendment to the Trade Bill and the Foreign Secretary has been hinting off the record at double standards in trying to secure certain trade deals. Compromising our common values on China would likely further damage the prospects of close co-operation with the United States. Indeed, at last week’s US-Japan summit there was pressure by the US on Japan to decouple supply chains from China.

The concept of Britain punching above her weight also seems nostalgic, especially with a £17 billion defence equipment budget hole and day-to-day defence spending being cut by 2.7% in real terms over the next four years. Instead of reducing our stockpile of Trident nuclear warheads to 180, the Government’s unexplained intention is to increase the cap to 260—a violation of the UK’s international non-proliferation treaty commitments. With the urgent need to invest and re-equip our health and care services after Covid, how on earth can we afford money-wasting spending on weapons of mass destruction when we have enormous capability anyway? The Government’s disgraceful decision to cut foreign aid from 0.7% of GDP to 0.5% will damage the UK’s leadership of the G7 and the climate summit later this year.

Britain’s credibility is also being damaged by threats to our own UK union and by the current dysfunctional relationship with the EU, our largest trading partner and the biggest, richest market in the world right here on our doorstep. Global Britain? More like parochial, shrunken Britain under this Government, sadly.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord McDonald of Salford.

15:07

[Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)]

My Lords, unlike many noble Lords, many allies have welcomed the integrated review. I will make just three points from listening to this debate.

First, the most consequential meeting the United Kingdom will organise this year—even more important than the G7—is COP 26 in November. Our guests in Glasgow are entitled to ask what our contribution is. This week’s announcement of a 78% reduction in CO₂ emissions by 2035 compared with 1990 goes a long way to answer that question, but 90% of the combined biodiversity of the UK and OTs is found in the OTs. What contribution will the OTs make to our climate objectives?

Secondly, I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Reid, Lord Howell, and Lord Hain, and others that raising the cap on our stockpile of nuclear warheads looks odd. I understand that a continuous at-sea deterrent needs us to be able to deploy two boats from time to time. The new ceiling allows both boats to be fully armed. But that does not increase deterrence. It is expensive and incompatible with our obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. In 1968, the non-nuclear weapon states accepted that as their permanent status in exchange for two things: the sharing of the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology, and that nuclear weapon states would work towards nuclear disarmament. The Government assert that the objective is untouched, but the announcement is a step away from its achievement.

Thirdly, on organisation, I agree with my noble friend Lord Ricketts that we need institutional arrangements with the European Union. Internally, things are clearer. The merger of the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office last year was an essential step to increase and maximise the coherence and impact of the UK’s overseas policy-making and policy delivery. Cutting the aid budget at the same time has made acceptance of this merger more difficult within the new department, but I still believe that it is the right thing to do and that we should go further—I hope that, before long, trade will fall under the authority of the Foreign Secretary.

Lastly, I have an organisational suggestion for the Opposition. In order to succeed, the FCDO needs everyone who works for it to buy into the new ministry. Some colleagues will feel justified in treating it as temporary for as long as there is a shadow Secretary of State for International Development. I urge the Opposition to correct that anomaly.

15:11

[Lord Risby (Con)]

My Lords, the very first world leader to have a personal meeting with the new US President was the Prime Minister of Japan. The posture of China has understandably increased nervousness and alarm in Japan, Korea, Taiwan and elsewhere. That meeting underlined the significance of the renewed emphasis of our own commitment to the Indo-Pacific region, but this assessment in our integrated review also needs to be put in the context of our commercial considerations.

Japan chairs the CPTPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an area of rapid economic growth and opportunity, and is supporting our bid for membership. This is very important, as we need a strong economic power base to protect our own future prosperity and security. Japan is committed to a free and open Indo-Pacific region. In the face of the current undermining of the rules-based international order, I ask my noble friend how we can assertively promote our own long-standing commitment to such an international order, given its immense importance.

British geostrategy has been largely based on the Euro-Atlantic theatre. Our newly emphasised commitment to the Indo-Pacific region does not preclude Britain being at the very heart of the security of the Euro-Atlantic region, where the bulk of the UK’s security focus will remain—and with reason.

I chair the British Ukrainian Society. The massive build-up of Russian armed forces on the country’s border reminds us of Russia’s continuing aggression. It is truly astonishing that Nord Stream 2 will increase dependence on Russian gas supplies, which have been operated with pricing mechanisms according to purely political criteria. It is of course most damaging to the Ukrainian economy, which will now be bypassed. I ask my noble friend, given that the review describes Russia as the most acute direct threat, how in practice we can deal with the serious challenge it is presenting?

Furthermore, in Europe we must assert the absolute necessity of defence burden sharing. We can be grateful to the United States for continuing to pay 70% of NATO’s budget. Without this, our vulnerability in the European continent would be much greater.

The review recognises Euro-Atlantic interconnectivity with the Indo-Pacific, where Britain will establish a greater presence than any other European country—most welcome to our friends in the region and the United States.

Since independence, India has sought to pursue a foreign policy not linked to any particular international grouping. India is crucial as an investor in this country. I hope that democratic India can play its role increasingly in protecting the Indian Ocean. Through our enhanced naval capability, notably HMS “Queen Elizabeth”, I hope we can work with India to effect this. Additionally, our ambition to enhance our scientific capacity can be shared with the high digital skills base in that country.

I very much welcome the clear emphasis on science and technology. Our inventive genius has not always been matched by subsequent commercial success. Building on this vital area and helping explicitly to combat climate change must remain key pillars as we recommit to a more focused role in the world.

15:15

[Lord Godson (Con) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, it is conventional on these occasions—a maiden speech—to pay tribute to the officers and staff of this House. Having spent much of my professional career in journalism and think tanks debunking the conventional wisdom, it is now delightful to be able to break the habit of a professional lifetime to sing their praises with enthusiasm —the one thing that truly unites us all. I am delighted to do so today for the welcome they have afforded. The expertise and counsel has been very much appreciated by me, as I know they are by many other newcomers here, so I thank them for that.

I also thank my supporters, my noble friends Lord Strathclyde and Lord Howard of Lympne—known well to many here, of course, as a distinguished former Leader of the House and a path-breaking Home Secretary. Their advice and counsel through years have been much appreciated by me as well. I say this particularly because one of my noble friends is a hereditary and the other a life Peer. There has been some harsh criticism from the fourth estate, of which I was once part, of both hereditaries and life Peers. I place on the record here and now my appreciation for the welcome, counsel and wisdom of life Peers and hereditary Peers from all segments of this House. I look forward to learning more and hearing more of their wisdom in the years to come. I say this because the caricature in some portions of the fourth estate and the wider country and society of what has been going on in this House is utterly at variance with what I have experienced.

I say this because I am a Briton not by birth but by choice. I find the caricature of this country in certain quarters of debate as a mean-spirited and bigoted polity, again, utterly at variance with what I have experienced. I place on the record that and the pleasure I derived, in the greatest honour of my public life, from being able to swear allegiance to the sovereign and her successors. The welcome afforded in this country to a newcomer, an immigrant such as me, has always rested on my consciousness, and I am profoundly grateful for it.

I mention this because we are of course here today to discuss the integrated review. As its title suggests, with one of the words about an era of competition, we are of course facing competition from really mean-spirited polities, unlike this country—the critique we hear sometimes in certain quarters. I am grateful that Policy Exchange, the think tank for which I work, has, with its Indo-Pacific report, played its part in shaping debate on the integrated review.

Several things need to be said. The report commanded the attention of many figures in the Indo-Pacific region. It was chaired by Stephen Harper, with a foreword from Shinzo Abe. Commissioners included several Members of this House—the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner—who are here today. Alas, the traditions of this House prevent me acknowledging them in parliamentary terms as friends, but I have benefited from their counsel and insight through the years.

Several things should be noted about impact of the Indo-Pacific report and the wider integrated review. The first is that there was a tremendous welcome from the distinguished group of commissioners on the Indo-Pacific Commission for Britain’s tilt—to use the term of art—towards that region again. The idea that we had become an irrelevance post Brexit could not be further from the truth.

Another point that I think has been omitted at times is that this is not a backward-looking report; it is not nostalgic. It is forward-looking, putting space policy at the heart of an integrated strategy. Moreover, it puts space policy beyond the confines of Europe and into the UK’s greater role in the wider world. The National Cyber Force is another obvious example, alongside a tech envoy to increase our presence in Silicon Valley and beyond. All these things are scarcely evidence of a backward-looking or nostalgic policy.

I look forward to playing a further part in these debates and learning from noble friends and noble Lords across the House. Although criticisms have been levelled today, there is still the serious possibility of dialogue and of recreating some kind of consensus for the future. The integrated review shows the potential that exists there. I look forward to hearing further from noble Lords and to learning more in the days and weeks to come.

15:20

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is more than an ordinary pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Godson, making his maiden speech. In Scotland, one of the great put-down lines is “I kent his faither”. When I say it today, it is the opposite of a put-down and instead a recognition of the legendary Joe Godson, who would rightly be so proud of his son today. The noble Lord made a fine maiden speech. That should be expected, as he brings to the House a wealth of experience in journalism, authorship and, of course, as director of Policy Exchange, now one of Britain’s most highly regarded and influential think tanks. We will look forward to his future, well-informed contributions.

The integrated review is well written, comprehensive and surprisingly comprehensible. The authors have done a good job constructing what looks like a coherent, ambitious strategy for post-Brexit Britain. In some areas, such as its focus on domestic resilience, it captures new and important ground. Territorial defence will inevitably matter more in the future, as the current invasion by Covid-19 has shown us only too well.

I can, I fear, make only a few brief points in the time limit. First, I believe the review lacks a critical path—a prioritised route to implementation. A plan without that ingredient is in danger of being lost in the governmental undergrowth.

Secondly, the importance of diplomacy is still underestimated. Our Diplomatic Service has been relentlessly cut back in recent years, yet the rest of this review depends on the wise insights and intelligence coming from the Diplomatic Service in the Foreign Office. Reviving and investing in diplomacy will be crucial for the success of the review.

Thirdly, the trade-offs in the defence section between investing in combating the new threats and the continuing ones will remain open to serious debate. If we are to retain our place at the leadership edge of NATO, as we aspire to, our contribution has to rest on more than just the 2.2% statistic.

Fourthly, if we are, as the review asserts, to lead by example in the world, that ambition will, as others have said, be badly damaged by the cut in the legally mandated aid budget of 0.7% of GNI. That cut is hardly an advert for a law-abiding global Britain upholding the rules-based order, and it has been widely noticed.

There is much more to be said about this large and important review, but more is time needed by all of us here and elsewhere to say it. The sooner we get that opportunity, the better.

15:24

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, first, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Godson. It is very good to have him here, not only for his expertise, but because one thing that I think unites Members across this House is the need to improve our reputation with the fourth estate. I have no doubt that he will bring to the inside some of his experience from the outside and enable us to do that. I remind the House of my registered interest as the director of the Centre for the Resolution of Intractable Conflict at Oxford University.

I welcome the idea of an integrated review of this kind and much good work has been put into it. As the review makes clear, we face extraordinary and difficult challenges, requiring complex of approaches to address them properly. However, I found that there was a disjunction between two different approaches within the report. I would like to speak to them in two ways.

The first is general. On the one hand, the report—in some very thoughtful and properly troubling passages—describes how the international rules-based order has been breaking down. It makes it clear that, rather like Humpty Dumpty, it will not be possible to put it back together again. However, at the very beginning of the report, one gets the sense that everything is wonderful, we are doing marvellously and we are going to capitalise on our place in the rules-based international order. These two things do not seem to fit terribly well together. It appears that there is a real need to struggle intellectually with putting them together because we have major challenges.

The second area is more troubling and more immediately so. As I said, the draft by the Prime Minister at the beginning is very positive and upbeat. One can see his very particular phraseology in it and feels like saying “Rah, rah, rah!” at the end of it—until one reads the rest of the report and compares it with one’s knowledge of what is going on. This is profoundly troubling.

I have warned repeatedly in this House that we are already into the third global conflict in cyberspace and it is emerging in other spaces too. Let me give two examples of the urgency. First, Margarita Simonyan, editor-in-chief of the state-funded Russian media outlets RT and Sputnik, said that war with the US is inevitable. She believes that the conflict will break out when, not if, Vladimir Putin seizes more territory from Ukraine. Within the last two weeks she has said that there will be a kind of war driven by hacking and the forced disruption of internet access. She said:

“I do not believe that this will be a large-scale hot war, like World War II, and I do not believe that there will be a long Cold War. It will be a war of the third type: the cyber war.”


Turning now to the second example, as is known, I am a psychiatrist, and I have watched with bemusement what I can describe only as the mass hysteria in the response by many leaders, including European leaders, to the question of the vaccine. But the reasons became clear to me in the last few weeks when I had my friends do some research. AstraZeneca is being targeted by large-scale malign influence campaigns conducted by the Russian Federation, using bots to advance its economic and foreign policy goals. The Russian operation has been successful in having France and others disqualify the AZ vaccine from use in their populations. Russia has been adversely influencing things, as it has been in elections and the gilets jaunes campaign. If we do not inform our populations that this is going on, we can scarcely be surprised if they do not appreciate it.

15:28

[Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)]

My Lords, time is short so I will not waste too much of it on congratulations. I also think a huge amount of the review is to be welcomed. It presents a largely compelling view of the global security context and the defence and security challenges we face. I wholly agree about the character of a far more competitive world—one that exists in a perpetual state of aggressive, but primarily non-kinetic, rivalry below the threshold of what we have previously viewed as formalised warfare.

In principle, I do not take issue with the theory of achieving military advantage through technological superiority, though I worry that the seductive nature of technical novelty has led to a premature gamble on a further reduction in military capacity. I suspect that the true state of the defence budget is the reason for this gamble. I applaud the further moves to integrate action on multiple fronts and the need for a strategy of persistent engagement. I regret the review’s lack of emphasis on allies.

I have more serious reservations about the review. To explain them requires a short digression into some military doctrine: specifically, the three subordinate components of what we call fighting power. They are: the physical component, the means to fight—tanks, planes and ships; the conceptual component, by which the physical capabilities are coherently employed—strategy, operational art and tactics; and the moral component—the ability to get people to fight, which I abbreviate as the integrity of leadership combined with the moral superiority of purpose. The military doctrine of our nation believes that the full potential of fighting power is realised only when all three of these components are working in harmony.

I believe you can apply those components to an assessment of this review. The review is pretty good at the physical component. Indeed, historically the outcome of many reviews has been judged on that element alone: is the right amount of money being spent on the most appropriate equipment, human capability or departmental activity? Where the review lacks clarity is in accepting that in the context of our two principle threats, China and Russia, our most important weapons are not physical ones: rather, they lie in the cognitive domain. We need a more compelling narrative that better justifies our sense of moral authority and the superiority of the values that we promote and defend. This is why the moral component is so important, but I fear it is the moral component of our nation that is currently damaged because our national integrity is under threat. Brexit, the state of the union, tensions over race, the alienation of politics from society, the continued maldistribution of wealth and opportunity, and sleaze: all these things combine in varying degrees to undermine our integrity, and therefore our moral superiority, in a war of ideas.

The review has described some of the conceptual component, but the description is somewhat abstract and short of explanation as to how ideas are operationalised in practice. For example, what is the ethical, moral and legal framework within which we deploy autonomous weapons, harness artificial intelligence, destroy space-based targets and initiate or threaten offensive cyberattacks? In the battle of competing narratives about what is normal and legitimate, how do we successfully attribute the false claims and illegal acts of our enemies? How does our political leadership sustain legitimacy for its actions? How much of what is envisaged will be disclosed to society? Does the requisite of government even exist to fight this war? Who are the architects of the enduring strategy? Who are the authors of the competing political narratives, and how are the narratives disseminated? Can the NSC really achieve all this sitting for an hour every other Tuesday?

I suppose my fundamental question is: having identified through this review the Government’s best estimate of the character of future war, have we both the machinery and the mentality to prosecute the necessary campaign successfully? Are we both ready and organised for what we have apparently just discovered? My fear is that the war has started and that, at least for now, we are firmly on the defensive.

15:33

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I will start by paying tribute to someone who I know would have been speaking in this debate if he had been able to. Lord Judd, who died last weekend, spent his life devoted to peace and justice internationally. He would tell me of being with his father, who was the first ever director of the United Nations Association in this country, where he met my father, who had set up a branch in the north-east. Frank and my father later became colleagues in the Commons, and both had a driving commitment never to return to the horrors of the war that they had seen.

I went to Kenya at about that time with VSO for two years, and Frank later became its director. We both remained strong advocates of that organisation, and it is that which inspires me today. Frank was horrified at the way in which the Government changed the legally binding commitment of 0.7% of our GDP going to development aid and the manner in which VSO was being treated: the lack of clear decision-making, and arbitrary cuts leading to massive uncertainty and insecurity for all the people involved. However, it is clearly about more than this. It injures our reputation abroad, certainly in those developing countries where promises have been broken and programmes abandoned, and with those countries and organisations where partnerships have been forged but where the UK is no longer able to fulfil its commitments. It is not clear to me that the Government really understand the full extent of that.

It is of course the Government’s right to reset the UK’s position in the world, and the report we are discussing today has many ambitions within it. However, these ambitions depend on the countries that we seek to work with, and the international agencies we want to be a partner in, trusting us and believing that we will stick by our word. That is what is in danger of being lost.

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement that he is looking to protect VSO, but what does this mean? Will the budget for volunteers for development be renewed at the original level of £16 million, or will the cuts of, in effect, 45% imposed so far on the short-term extensions be the extent of protection? Will the Government ensure that the programme, which they recognise as one of the most effective delivered by UKAID, is able to continue without the closure of work in countries where, even during the pandemic, real change around local communities’ response to Covid-19, protection for women and girls and working with local communities to build resilience against climate change in the most vulnerable countries have all been going on despite the cuts?

Soft power, as the Government have acknowledged, is an essential tool in modern international relations. Organisations such as VSO are the best soft power that the Government have. Will they therefore meet a very small, cross-party delegation to discuss this issue urgently?

15:37

[Lord King of Bridgwater (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome my local noble friend Lord Godson and thank him for showing so quickly the excellent contribution that he is going to make to our discussions.

I welcome the integrated review. It is a very brave undertaking by the Government. It is a remarkable document with a very bullish foreword by our Prime Minister. Of course, it is not just a defence review; it carries a host of intentions and undertakings in security, defence, development and foreign policy. It is going to be pretty fertile ground for regular reviews by Parliament of the various aims and ambitions that it expresses.

It has been accompanied by a pretty extensive defence Command Paper. Ben Wallace, the Secretary of State, says in that paper that his core mission is

“to seek out and to understand future threats”.

In the brief time available, I will raise one threat that is referred to only briefly in the review, in connection with the nuclear deterrent, and pick up a theme mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Reid. The integrated review restates the commitment to the goal of a world without nuclear weapons, but recognises that there is no early prospect of that, so instead announces the ordering of four new Dreadnought submarines to replace the Vanguards. So, far from the planned reduction of warheads, it announces an increase. That surprised me, and I understand the comments that others have made about that decision—and of course it includes the design of a new warhead. The review states:

“We will champion strategic risk reduction and seek to create dialogue among states possessing nuclear weapons, and between states possessing nuclear weapons and non-nuclear weapon states, to increase understanding and reduce the risk of misinterpretation and miscalculation.”


It is precisely that risk that I, like the noble Lord, Lord Reid, wish to highlight. The continuous at-sea deterrent operates in a totally different communications environment now from the safe, secure systems when it originally operated. We are living now in a world with ever-new developments, with cyberwarfare, ever-greater organised hacking systems, artificial intelligence, audio and videos called deep fakes and, on the side, an increasing interest by other countries in some of our undersea cables, which are important to some of our communication connections. The risk of misinterpretation and miscalculation is all the greater, and there is a vital need for effective hotlines at a top level between nuclear weapons states.

I have just learnt that France, as the new chair of the P5 process, has embraced the concept of strategic risk reduction and will make improving crisis communication technologies, such as hotlines, a key priority for discussion among the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council ahead of and beyond the planned review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty this August. I hope the Government will give this French initiative the greatest possible support and assistance. There is no question but that we live a more dangerous world at present, with the increasingly assertive role of Russia and China’s activities. It is a dangerous situation and nuclear miscalculation could be catastrophic. No time must be lost in addressing that.

15:41

[Lord Empey (UUP) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend Lord Godson to the Chamber. He mentioned that he has been a member of the fourth estate, as he put it, for many years. Perhaps we will see circumstances where poacher becomes gamekeeper. We look forward very much to hearing more of his thoughts in the days ahead.

Broadly speaking, I welcome the fact that there is a review. I welcome many of the ambitious proposals it contains on science and technology issues and cyber issues. All these things are very important and very valuable. We have seen how small a place the world has become, particularly in the past year when disease knows no boundaries.

However, one issue continues to worry me. I do not believe that we have succeeded in matching our resources, particularly in terms of defence, to our policy objectives. We have heard for decades about the black hole that exists in the MoD in its equipment and other budgets. When the noble Lord, Lord Hammond, was Secretary of State for Defence, we were told that this gap had been plugged. However, just as the 2010 review proved to be a major mistake, I think we are on the verge of making unnecessary mistakes this time.

I appreciate that we cannot look on defence purely in terms of numbers of troops and traditional equipment. The nature of warfare is changing, as many speakers have pointed out. However, I do not understand the idea that you can have all these international objectives—some of which I think are very good—but deliver them with a smaller army while getting rid of one of the principal mechanisms for moving troops and equipment around the world, the Hercules transport aircraft. If we are, quite correctly, trying to re-establish a footprint in the Indo-Pacific region, how that is to be achieved with fewer vessels at our disposal escapes me.

We still have not matched our resources. I do not believe that we can deliver these very valuable objectives within a remit of 2.2% of GDP. I just do not think it is possible. We have to rethink that all together. I do not like budgets that are ring-fenced by percentages: it has to be done on need and on a changing basis. We see that with the development budget, which so many speakers have already mentioned today. I feel, to put it colloquially, that our eye is bigger than our belly. We have these objectives, many of which are good, but we have not matched our financial resources to deliver them. I ask the Minister, particularly on defence, where I hope we will have further opportunities for more detailed debate, to bear in mind that with a shrunken military footprint we cannot deliver what are sometimes very valuable objectives.

15:46

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interest as vice-chair of and consultant to the Nuclear Threat Initiative. In the other place, Tobias Ellwood, anticipating the visit of General Austin, the US Secretary of Defense, said:

“our special relationship requires work.”

Predicting warm words about the special relationship and our planned investment in

“special forces, cyber and space resilience,”—[Official Report, Commons, 14/4/21; col. 395]

he suggested that, in private, Austin would more candidly say our navy is way too small, conventional fighting capability should not be cut and nor should the F-35 order.

Although those words reflect Labour’s criticism of the integrated review, I want to focus on another aspect of the review and what it means for the relationship with the US. In doing so, I shall expand upon one of the issues raised by my noble friend Lord Reid. The meeting took place last Thursday, but I can find no reference to what was discussed on the MoD’s website. Five days later, the DoD carried a readout, which makes the usual positive noises about the relationship, mentions Russia amassing of forces on Ukraine’s border and an orderly end to the war in Afghanistan. It has a reference, expanded upon in a terse and matter-of-fact joint statement, to past and continuing consultation on the review and strategic alignment.

There is no reference to consultation with the Biden Administration but rather between the respective defence departments. That difference is not lost on those who have been commenting on the gaping disparity now between our new nuclear weapons posture and that of President Biden, who has spoken of a national security imperative and moral responsibility to manage and eliminate the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction.

UK officials have been briefing on the review in the US. One, asked whether the removal of the cap had been discussed with the Biden Administration, responded that the Government wanted to report to Parliament first. As our current nuclear posture is more an echo of the Trump Administration’s 2019 posture review than the aspirations of the new President, was prior discussion with the DoD under the previous Administration? An increase in the cap on our nuclear weapons stockpile to more than 260 warheads is a significant reversal from the long-standing position on reducing numbers while maintaining a minimum deterrent force.

Equally concerning to Biden must be that while Russia and the US publicly declare their numbers, we will no longer publish details of our operational nuclear stockpile and deployed warheads and missiles. This is a significant blow to transparency. The justification so far is thin and unconvincing. The review lacks a compelling rationale for raising the warhead cap. There is a brief reference to an

“evolving security environment, including the developing range of technological and doctrinal threats,”—

a reference to Russia’s new and planned nuclear systems. No explanation is given for how increasing the stockpile will provide a more credible deterrent, improve UK security or impress Moscow, whose nuclear force will continue to dwarf ours.

Now, we reserve the right to threaten nuclear use if a threat from chemical and biological weapons or “emerging technologies” makes it necessary. What does this really mean? This policy shift is not proportionate to the threat and under any circumstances is not credible. Would the UK ever use a nuclear weapon against a chemical, biological, or cyber attack? An expanded use policy for nuclear weapons is directly counter to Biden’s commitment to consult with allies about moving towards a “sole purpose” declaratory policy that the nuclear arsenal is only for deterring or retaliating against nuclear attacks.

Coming weeks after the announcement of the US and Russia agreeing to extend New START and to engage in successor agreement discussions, this flies in the face of this new opportunity to stop the nuclear arms race. When its closest ally moves in a contrary direction, it presents a significant barrier for the new Biden Administration. Will the Minister expand on the joint statement agreed between Ben Wallace and General Austin? When did consultation take place? What was the US response to what is universally now interpreted as an inexplicable abdication of the long-standing leadership role on nuclear disarmament by policy change, counter to Biden’s commitment to reduce the role of nuclear weapons and his commitment to sole purpose?

15:50

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, said what she said about Frank Judd. I associate myself with it and add only that he was an excellent Minister for Defence and Development and in the Foreign Office, and always a genuinely good man.

Foreign friends are relieved that the Government’s puzzling new definition of sovereignty, which has obliged us at such considerable cost to sever economic, commercial and social ties with our European neighbours, apparently does not extend to NATO or United Nations obligations, or to the rules-based international order. The review shows that rules are okay provided they are not European, which is still a bit puzzling but good news. I welcome the linkage of domestic and international aspects of security and the new emphasis on a whole-of-society approach to resilience.

However, I find the hubris grating and mourn the death of British self-deprecation. I recall Lord Carrington’s reaction when Helmut Schmidt, his German Defence Secretary counterpart, told him that what made the UK crucial to European security was not so much 55,000 combat-ready troops forward-based in Germany, but German certainty that we could be trusted; if the balloon went up, the Brits would be there, and there was German certainty that Moscow knew that too. Back then, we did not shout about it. We carried a much bigger stick than we now do, but we spoke much more softly and carried more conviction.

Does President Putin, with his troops massing against the Donbass, pause to ponder how we might act on our 1994 commitment to the Ukraine’s security? I doubt it. Does President Xi, as he contemplates Taiwan, worry about our carrier deployment? I doubt it. A rather small gorilla beating its chest risks looking a little ludicrous. The Carringtons and Heaths, the Callaghans and Healeys—the generation who knew war and understood security—would not have been quite so hubristic. Of course, they would have agreed that it makes sense to subordinate national sovereignty to allied solidarity, and autarchy to mutually agreed rules, but they would have warned that what matters most is to retain a reputation for reliability. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is right that brutal 50% cuts to bilateral aid hurt us as well as the world’s poorest, and we surely shock the world by passing a law to break international law and tear up a newly minted treaty, gravely damaging global Britain.

One cannot rebuild a reputation by shouting about what one intends. Actions speak louder than words. We must see ourselves as others see us, remember Helmut Schmidt’s tribute, and seek to rebuild trust. The fine words of the review cannot do that for us. Only our actions can.

15:54

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register of Members’ interests.

Security, defence, foreign policy and development should always be co-ordinated, but that does not mean that they must all be in one department, nor that the existence of DfID for the last 20 years has compromised the UK’s diplomatic reach. Indeed, I believe that the opposite has been the case. The UK has many strengths and we should play to them. We also have weaknesses and we should address them. That said, it is not clear from the review exactly what the UK’s positioning in the world will be. Talk of maintaining our commitment to and engagement with Europe, while apparently also wanting to increase our influence on the Indo-Pacific region, smacks of a yearning for a past that cannot be recovered.

The UK is a trading nation but our capacity to trade is weak. Our science and technology, much of which is truly world-class, lacks a manufacturing capacity to achieve the export strength that we need. Our success in helping to develop and roll out the Covid vaccines has been achieved through international co-operation, something the Government seem reluctant to acknowledge. Yet co-operation with the EU and the developing world is essential to eliminating the virus and protecting us against future pandemics. At the same time, a poor post-Brexit agreement with the EU has weakened our services base, which has been our strongest suit. The graphic on page 8 of the review is revealing of the blinkered and prejudiced mindset. It states:

“The UK has a seat in every major multilateral organisation”


and lists the 10 that it is referring to, but the EU is not one of them. Clearly, it is no longer an international organisation regarded as major by the UK Government. Relationships with China are crucial and delicate. How much of a stand are we prepared to make on the dismantling of democracy in Hong Kong and the exclusion of Taiwan from international organisations, not least the WHO?

The review presents the UK as footloose global Britain, able to dart in and out wherever our interests require it. Yet the decisions that this Government have taken will keep the world and UK citizens guessing. To have sustained influence requires co-operation, trust, consistency and respect. Looking at the UK from the outside presents a baffling and confusing identity. What cannot be gainsaid is that the Government have raised the defence budget’s share of GNI by 0.2 percentage points and increased our nuclear warheads, while, at the same time, official development assistance has been cut by 0.2 points. The message is clear: the UK is switching its emphasis from soft power to hard power. This is reinforced by the incorporation of DfID into the FCDO, subordinating aid spending to diplomatic leverage.

Prioritising east Africa and Nigeria must also make other African countries wonder where they stand. What does that mean for Ghana, Sierra Leone, the newly reborn Gambia, Malawi or Zambia? The cuts in aid have sent shockwaves through development NGOs and humanitarian charities. UK aid and development partners recognise that the aid budget does not exist for their benefit, but the Government know that the reach of our development programmes cannot be achieved without these partners.

Cuts on this scale, implemented at speed, will be highly damaging and disruptive not only to the development partners but, more importantly, to the beneficiaries. The cuts necessitated by the pandemic downturn, amounting to £2.9 billion, were severe enough, and are only now being felt. To add to those cuts an even more severe reduction will do incalculable harm. There is a need for more official development assistance, not less, if we are to make the world safe from the present and future pandemics, rebuild damaged livelihoods, end absolute poverty and leave no one behind. To achieve that, the UK will need expert partners, whose capacity will be seriously eroded by such savage and, so far, unspecified cuts. Such short-term twists and turns are no way to run a long-term aid strategy. This looks more like a disintegrated review.

15:58

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, the document read to me as “how to fight the last war” rather than “how to face up to the future”. I have one or two comments about the soft power aspects in particular.

The Council of Europe, of which I am a member, has been looking at the 100th anniversary of the Geneva conventions. Very recently, the European Court of Human Rights brought in a very interesting judgment which people say has thrown everything into confusion, but I think has clarified it. It said that you cannot apply human rights while a conflict is in progress. It throws us back into looking at how the Geneva conventions will be applied at all, but it is common sense. If you have people shooting at each other in the street, you can hardly run out and say, “Excuse me, item 13 says that you must point that this way”. That is one way in which we will have to reclassify how we look at how we wage war.

Secondly, of course, is the long debate over the aid changes. I think the Government are wrong; they should not have cut the aid. But the aid agencies have had too soft a ride for too long a time. I talked to someone in the aid business about the Oxfam debacle and all they could say was, “Well, Oxfam got found out, you know, they are all up to it.” Instead of cutting back the aid budget, the Government should have got to grips with the way in which it was being used and spent, because that was, and remains, the real problem.

But let us not think of it as aid. We think of it as giving pennies to the poor, but it is not. It is investing in common sense. I am one of the few people in this House who are prepared publicly to say nice things about David Cameron, whom I worked for. David always insisted that the reason for increasing the aid budget was to make the countries we were assisting places where people wanted to live in preference to being refugees and trying to come to live in our country. He had quite a clear view. I remember when the proposal came out to increase the budget. Some asked—these were the words—“Why are you adopting a Labour proposal?” He said, “It is not a Labour proposal; it is a common-sense proposal. It is a proposal to make the countries better places for the people already living there, and it is a very wise investment of money.” The Government have been remiss in not carrying on with that.

Finally, we need to look a bit harder at NATO. For a time, I was vice-chair of the European Parliament’s sub-committee on defence. We discovered that NATO had enormous problems. It could not get its tanks over bridges. If it wanted to cross frontiers within NATO member states, it had to get permission, and it was made quite clear to us that, in some instances, that permission would not be granted. We tried, but what is now needed—HMG could well put some effort into this—is to get NATO operable and into a position where it can actually do something. At the moment, the restrictions on it stop it doing anything.

16:02

[Lord Boyce (CB) [V]]

My Lords, the integrated review, and its accompanying Defence Command Paper and industrial strategy paper, have gone some way to addressing the mistakes made in the awful 2010 defence review and the somewhat less disastrous 2015 strategic defence review. What is particularly to be welcomed is that the threat has been put very much to the fore, and for that much credit should go to the Secretary of State for Defence. We see cyber, artificial intelligence and space being given due and proper attention.

The review lays emphasis on global Britain, and in so doing recognises that forward deployment and persistent engagement need to be essential ingredients of the Armed Forces construct. As part of that, a refreshed maritime strategy is given appropriate prominence. There is a promising forward shipbuilding programme to support this, but in the short to medium term, we will see the frigate force shrink below its already emaciated size. Frigates are the key element in persistent forward presence. Once again, I ask what can be done to speed up the delivery of Type 26 and Type 31 ships currently in build and shortly to be ordered. It is incomprehensible that we will not see the first of the new ships operational until well into the second half of this decade. I hardly need say that any sort of attrition—a word, by the way, that is conspicuous by its absence in the review and is equally relevant to our land and air forces—would be a serious setback. What attention has been given in the review to the matter of attrition in general?

Regarding the review’s concept of forward deployment, it is encouraging to see the strong manifestation of this with the deployment of the carrier strike group to the Indo-Pacific this summer. I hope the Minister will confirm that, among other things, opportunities will be sought to strengthen our alliances out there, such as the Five Power Defence Arrangements, the FPDA; to look for ways to create bonds with the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, the Quad; and not to shy away from exerting our right to freedom of navigation through the South China Sea. Such things have important relevance to global Britain.

To pick up on the intention set out in the review to increase the ceiling of our overall nuclear stockpile from no more than 180 warheads by the mid-2020s to no more than 260 warheads, this measure seems to have raised alarm in some quarters, but I applaud the Government’s courage and the wisdom of taking it. We profess to having the absolute minimum credible deterrent, but the word “credible” is valid only if the missiles can get to their target. With the potential opposition improving daily their nuclear capabilities, including anti-ballistic missile systems, this is a necessary measure. It does not involve building new warheads, although a replacement programme in due course is under consideration. I remind those who say that this sets a bad example that our good example of reductions in nuclear firepower over the past couple of decades has absolutely not been followed by any nuclear weapons state which may be unfriendly. In fact, it is quite the contrary: they have all significantly increased their nuclear arsenals and capabilities.

16:06

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, in many ways the integrated review acknowledges with greater force than we have seen before from a UK Government the arguments that the Green Party has made for decades—that security can be achieved only in a stable environment and that the climate emergency and nature crisis are a threat to all our futures. That is driven home today with the HadCRUT5 global temperature series showing that the average global temperature for 2020 was 1.3 degrees—plus or minus 0.1 degrees—above preindustrial levels.

Much of the overarching rhetoric of the integrated review could have been written by the intellectual thought leaders in this area: the Rethinking Security network. But, as many noble Lords have pointed out, the text fails to acknowledge or make difficult choices. It fails to meet its ambition to set a path for the next 10 years.

I will briefly pick up three elements the Minister highlighted in his introduction. First, on science and technology, the review talks about Britain being a world leader and innovator—something that the Government frequently major on—but in such a narrow range of fields. The Minister referred to artificial intelligence and renewables, and I cannot disagree with the last one. But ask a farmer, crucial to food security, or an ecologist, crucial to the nature-based solutions to the climate emergency that the Government like to talk about, what science they need, and it is not those. Protecting our soils, using agroecological systems for food production, managing our freshwaters and seas and understanding the complexity of life on earth are absolutely fundamental to security. There are an estimated 1.7 million undiscovered types of viruses in vertebrates. We have brilliant experts in this and many other fields; let us celebrate and fund them—not just to treat the diseases after they have arisen but to understand the underlying systems.

Secondly, the Minister spoke in an unqualified way about trade delivering jobs and prosperity. I fundamentally question that assertion. We have come to the end of a period of a massive explosion in global trade and are in an insecure, poverty-stricken and environmentally trashed world. The harm done by some trade is obvious. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute tells us that sales of arms and military services by the largest 25 companies totalled $361 billion in 2019. Of course, included in that are our sales to Saudi Arabia, a regime with one of the worst human rights records on this planet and, of course, a key proponent in the dreadful war destroying Yemen.

Thirdly, I come to aid. I am really quite astonished that the Minister chose to highlight the Government’s prioritising of girls’ education on the day that Save The Children concludes that spending on education for girls will be reduced by 25% in 2021 compared to 2019-20. Perhaps the Minister can confirm whether that is correct. It is a long-time Green Party policy to lift that aid figure to 1%—clearly the direction of greater security.

Finally, I come to the astonishing and deeply disturbing changes in nuclear doctrine and practice. I associate myself particularly with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, and with others who questioned this. Some observers have pointed out that lifting a cap is not lifting numbers. If this is just an empty gesture, a rhetorical firebrand playing tough to a domestic audience in the culture war, then it is a truly dangerous and immoral one. If it is a real plan to increase the number of these hideous weapons of mass destruction, it is also deeply dangerous and immoral, as is the widening of the doctrine for their use.

This review is glancing in a new direction for security, and yet it firmly continues to wade forward through the swamp of inequality, militarism and environmental destruction.

16:11

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, I should note my entries in the register of interests. I would also like to note that this integrated review is in many ways a development of the work of British Governments over nearly 20 years, in trying to bring together defence, diplomacy and development policy, strategy and implementation. It was begun under the last Labour Government, under both Prime Ministers, who not only tried to improve the way in which the British Government worked in relation to the integration of policy within the UK but spoke out for that internationally as well. It was developed under the Cameron Administration, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Hague, and Andrew Mitchell, as Secretary of State for DfID, and it is welcome that we have another integrated review to take this forward. The disappointment is in the content, not in the concept.

While I welcomed this review after the election in 2019, at that time I was also welcoming the fact that the new Government were committed to 0.7% of GNI on official development assistance. While one promise has been broken, and potentially a law has been broken, in the other case, this review has failed to match the high ambitions that were perhaps initially set for it.

There can be no doubt that in any conflict situation around the world where our security interests are of concern, an integrated approach to policy is essential in securing investment in development with good, strong diplomacy supporting human rights, democracy and the values that we put forward as a country, alongside the need for military power, or at least the potential for military intervention. Whether we are in the Sahel or south-east Asia—in Myanmar at the moment—or anywhere else in the world, the integration of these three approaches is absolutely critical. There can also be no doubt that, in all these situations, conflict and instability is caused by poverty, poor governance and a lack of opportunity. The prevention of conflict and of security threats, has, at its core, dealing with those issues of poverty, lack of opportunity and poor democracy and human rights. It is simply not possible to bomb grievances, ideas and dreams out of people’s heads. We have to deal with the root causes of conflict and instability, which is why defence, diplomacy and development have to go hand in hand.

If Frank Judd, the late Lord Judd, had been with us today, he would have said that the key word here is not “integrated” but “interdependence”. The interdependence of our world today is seen more clearly in 2020 than perhaps ever before, in a pandemic that began with a virus, almost certainly in China, but ended up closing schools in every continent in the world, shutting down trade routes and travel and having an impact far beyond its origins. That interdependence surely leads us to think again, and I hope to think again about these cuts to official development assistance, where we have invested, as a country, in democratic institutions, human rights and better governance, as well as tackling the impact of extreme poverty and lack of opportunity.

The question in 2021 and beyond, and for generations that follow us, will be to look back and say: were the rich, powerful countries of the world willing to step up and bring the global community together after this pandemic, or were we willing to let it fall apart? On the key issue of development, alongside diplomacy and defence—not two and a half but all three together—this review falls short.

16:15

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, I too welcome the noble Lord, Lord Godson, to this House. He was once described as one of London’s most influential people. I look forward to his influencing Members of this House to like this country as much as he and I do, both of us being adoptive to this country.

I congratulate the Government on the publication of the integrated review. It is thoughtful and comprehensive. A review drawing together the threads of foreign policy, defence, national security and international development into a coherent whole was long overdue. The review has many original features. Its so-called tilt to the Indo-Pacific region has perhaps attracted the most public attention. We learn from the media that its first manifestation will be the despatch to the region next month of a carrier strike group, led by HMS “Queen Elizabeth”. Can the Minister confirm that the strike group will be deployed to the South China Sea to underline our attachment to the law of the sea and international freedom of navigation?

It is also reported that, en route to the Far East, a Royal Navy destroyer and frigate from the strike group will stop off in the Black Sea to offer support to the Government and people of Ukraine, who are yet again being placed under unacceptable pressure by the Russian Government, who have massed over 100,000 troops on Ukraine’s eastern frontier. As the Prime Minister’s first trade envoy to Ukraine—I hereby declare my interest—I warmly welcome our Government’s wholehearted support for Ukraine’s territorial integrity. We are playing a crucial role in helping Ukraine rebuild its infrastructure and defence capability. Only three days ago, our two countries signed an agreement to expand Operation Orbital, which provides for co-operation between our Armed Forces. It is, I hope the House will agree, a clear example of the UK putting its money where its mouth is—in this case, practical action to buttress democracy and national sovereignty in a friendly state.

Given that the integrated review named Russia as

“the most acute threat to our security”,

I suggest to the Minister that the dangerous situation on Ukraine’s eastern border urgently demands a twin-track approach to deter aggression—namely, not only a naval acte de présence in the Black Sea, but a determined British diplomatic initiative to help our French and German friends revive the Minsk II protocol, which is today all but dead.

16:19

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB) [V]]

My Lords, the review we are debating today is an impressive and perceptive analysis of the threats, challenges and opportunities that this country faces as it charts its way in a new chapter of its history, following our departure from the European Union, so it should be welcomed. There are some blemishes, of course, including the silliness of the reluctance to mention the European Union except in passing. Less estimable, I suggest, is the fact that the cart of key security decisions—the merger of the FCO and DfID, the savage cuts in the overseas aid budget and the detail of defence spending over the next few years—has preceded the horse of the review. Those decisions should surely have been shaped by the review, not have pre-empted it.

One overall impression stands out: Britain can no longer hope to overcome these threats and challenges acting alone. We need allies and partners if we are to prevail. In the period following Brexit and four years of alliance disruption and disregard from President Trump’s White House, that is no small order. That challenge is underlined by last week’s decision by the US to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan by September, best characterised tersely by our own Chief of the Defence Staff as

“not a decision we hoped for”.

What should we think about the much-trumpeted tilt towards the Indo-Pacific? Leave aside the fact that the review does not even give geographical definition to that region. Does it begin in east Africa and extend to the western coast of Latin America? Does it include Pakistan, for example? Is it welcome to our closest ally, the US, or would it have preferred us to put more effort into Euro-Atlantic security and into Africa, where it has never been deeply engaged?

It is a pity more was not said about multilateral peacekeeping by the UN and by regional organisations such as the African Union. With the retreat from coalitions of the willing expeditions, such as those to Iraq and Afghanistan, there will inevitably be more demand for peacekeeping if some parts of the world are not to fall into chaos and insecurity. But that sort of peacekeeping needs to be made more effective and, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, we have a responsibility to provide training, mentoring, specialised services, and equipment.

The sections of the review on nuclear weapons policy have been criticised by many others. I suggest that they lack any developed rationale, let alone any justification. Just when the two largest possessors of these weapons have frozen their strategic missile arsenals for another five years, we are going to head off in the opposite direction, thus undermining our capacity to pursue the objective of strategic stability at this year’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. The doctrine of “deliberate ambiguity” as to the numbers of our warheads and the purposes for which they might be used, which has been proudly proclaimed by the Government as a new kind of doctrine, does not strengthen our security at all. If all nuclear weapon possessor states practised that doctrine, would we be less at risk from nuclear war? I rather doubt that.

In conclusion, the review, if not some of its policy prescriptions, is welcome but we will soon see whether there is a gap between rhetoric and reality as it is put into practice. I fear there will be.

16:23

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, I will focus my comments on aid and international development. Before I start, I declare my interests as listed in the register. I am a consultant for NDI, the National Democratic Institute, which offers training and support to fledgling democracies.

When it comes to international development, the integrated review confirmed many of aid sector’s fears. By ending the UK’s commitment to spending 0.7% of GNI on overseas aid, the Government are abandoning the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people when they need our support most. In doing so, the Government are not only breaking their own manifesto commitments but making it more difficult for the UK to achieve its foreign policy objectives. This benefits no one.

The review talks of the UK being a force for good in the world, but that simply cannot be reconciled with the decision to slash the aid budget. The cuts will mean a reduction of up to 60% of the support we give to Yemen, one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world, and by cutting programmes in Iraq and Syria, where the Foreign Secretary has previously accepted that humanitarian work is essential to the security efforts to counter ISIS, the UK could now be leaving fertile ground for future insurgencies.

As a country, we also have a unique responsibility as host of the crucial COP 26 climate summit in Glasgow this year to lead the way on tackling the climate crisis we face together. As Save the Children said yesterday, on hearing the first details of how the cuts will be imposed, these cuts are

“slashing aid to communities on the front line of that crisis.”

By cutting development programmes we are sending all the wrong signals to our allies and partners. We are undermining our diplomatic efforts—the polar opposite of what the strategic review was intended to achieve. Of course, these historic aid cuts follow the senseless decision of the dissolving of the world-leading Department for International Development. I have still not heard a coherent argument as to why that happened. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, decisions have been made that are shaping the review but which should have followed the review, not be made before it.

The Government’s failure to provide details of the impact that aid cuts will have on country-specific programmes means continued uncertainty for the aid sector and the vital projects that rely on the UK. The UK should focus its efforts on poverty alleviation, meeting the SDGs, and multiplier programmes such as education and nutrition. Above all, the UK needs a coherent approach to sustainable development and a clear vision that reflects the values we hold as a country. While the review offers a fleeting mention of a development strategy to be published at a later date, Ministers have not been able to give any information on when that will appear. Can the Minister confirm when the strategy will be published, and can she also confirm that the FCDO is fully engaging development NGOs in the drafting of the strategy? After all, it is only through meaningful engagement with civil society that government can benefit from those with the best-available knowledge, evidence and expertise on global development.

16:28

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, recent thinking and experience points to a growing third part to our defence and security, that which lies between active overseas participation and defensive preparation: the grey zone of hostile acts that fall short of open warfare but which are nevertheless profoundly troublesome and which must be countered in that grey zone.

One aspect of this has been the setting up of the National Cyber Force as an offensive unit. This introduces a new doctrine of offensive actions as well as, and apart from, the traditional role of intelligence gathering in all its methods, from SIGINT to HUMINT. I have raised this topic before, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, kindly wrote to me to explain the new arrangement for control of the National Cyber Force. She said that the National Cyber Force commander

“will report to both Defence and GCHQ. The first Commander of the National Cyber Force is currently a civilian employee of GCHQ. They are not being named as, while National Cyber Force is publicly avowed, it is not public facing.”

There seems to be a distinct lack of a clear chain of command in this response. Perhaps that is not so surprising, since the new force is yet to bring together and blend what were clearly distinct areas of responsibility for two different Secretaries of State.

Nevertheless, a committee-type structure to run or oversee live operations, with all their potential hazards, is a recipe for mismanagement and divided, unclear responsibility. That is not satisfactory. While I recognise that we are at the early stages of setting up this new force, I was and still am concerned about the chain of command and responsibilities of the two Secretaries of State involved. It might at first blush be reasonable to assume that the offensive use employed is directly either a defence or a Security Service action. But if it is not already—very soon in cyber strategy terms—such a distinction will become blurred or non-existent.

While the examples quoted by the Government for offensive cyber action are clear-cut, there could, as capabilities mature, be abilities to disrupt national infrastructures, for example. While the possible targets should and must remain secret, the legal, human rights, ethical and political considerations cannot be ignored. Will the Intelligence and Security Committee be given an overwatch role on offensive cyber force operations? There is surely such a role for Parliament, and this should be clear from the outset.

16:31

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very helpful introduction. This review is long-awaited and good in parts. I welcome in particular the establishment of the counterterrorism operations centre and the National Cyber Force. The review gives a correct analysis of the threat from both Russia and China. Russia is now massing more than 100,000 troops at the borders of Ukraine for what it calls an exercise. China poses the dilemma of how we strike an appropriate balance between competition and co-operation while being true to our values.

However, my first criticism of the review is that, despite it being overseen by a professional historian—the son of the noble Lord, Lord Bew—it lacks a historical perspective. There is no adequate appraisal of our reduced role since 1945 and our limited economic resources, with a clear need now to prioritise more carefully and see where we can add value. In my judgment, the review excessively reflects the personal views of the Prime Minister, who was unable, both in his introduction to the review in the House of Commons and in his foreword to the review itself, even to mention the words “European Union”, as if it were a four-letter word. His foreword ends with a typical nostalgic flourish, with a paragraph entitled,

“British leadership in the world in 2021”.

The Prime Minister’s attitude contrasts with that of the noble Lord, Lord Hague, with his soft Brexit approach. I noted particularly his article in last week’s Times, where he did not show any visceral hostility, but rather a recognition that, post Brexit, we still need a special relationship with our immediate neighbours. The Prime Minister claims a new independence, but this might, in fact, lead us more and more into the slipstream of the US, as we saw in the timing of our exit from Afghanistan.

We need to look more carefully at our strengths and weaknesses. Until recently, before the controversy over the Northern Irish protocol, we could cite our adherence to the rule of law as one of our key values. Now, as the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, has argued elsewhere, we have lost the high ground in our criticisms of China over Hong Kong. We have a remarkable past, but are no longer in the Premier League, even if we are at the top of the Championship, with legitimate claims to be a soft power superpower.

Before the publication of the review, which was a worthwhile exercise in itself, we had the two changes: the folding of DfID into the FCO and the reduction of overseas aid. Both should have been seen at the same time as the review.

Other reflections include the tilt to the Indo-Pacific—a possible echo of east of Suez. Will it be welcome to the US, or would it prefer us to be closer to the northern Atlantic? A recent poll from the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies showed that only 3.7% of respondents saw the UK as their preferred strategic partner after the US. Will closer links to the Indo-Pacific region compensate for the loss of influence in Europe?

Some of our values, of course, are in the field of soft power, yet there are contradictions, such as the shabby way in which VSO has been treated. We used to pride ourselves on being a bridge between the US and the European Union, and being a gateway for foreign investment into the European Union—no longer. It is claimed that we have lost an empire and are searching for a role. On the basis of this review, we have left the European Union and are still searching for a role.

16:36

[Lord Truscott (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, when, in 1992, Francis Fukuyama heralded the post-Cold War ascendency of western liberal democracy as “the end of history”, he was somewhat premature. Global democracy has looked pretty rocky of late, with the latest example being the coup in Myanmar. The western system of democracy is under attack and being undermined, as the integrated review suggests. A large number of millennials in the US, Europe and the UK are questioning the legitimacy of democracy, just as large numbers of Hong Kongers have fought for it. Around half or slightly less of the world’s population live in a democracy. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s measure of democracy, in 2016 the US was demoted from a full democracy to a flawed democracy.

The integrated review is part of our fightback. The rise of China does not mean the inevitable decline of the West and our values. I had the privilege of presenting the European Parliamentary Labour Party’s submission to the 1998 strategic defence review by the then Defence Secretary, now the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, whom we heard earlier. The current integrated review claims to be the most significant foreign policy and security review since then.

I do not intend to repeat all the points well made by many noble and gallant Lords and experts in the field today. However, I agree that the integrated review lacks focus and a sense of prioritisation. It is, in a sense, too broad and too ambitious. Crucially, it is not at all apparent, even given the boost in defence expenditure, that this will meet the review’s stated aims, some of which appear contradictory.

I welcome the Indo-Pacific tilt as a case in point, as a recognition of the region’s growing economic and geopolitical importance. However, it is not clear how much resource will be allocated to the tilt to make it meaningful. The Indo-Pacific tilt also has implications for NATO, which the review says will remain the foundation of our collective security. Should this not result in NATO itself adapting to the new geopolitical reality of developments in the Indo-Pacific? HMS “Queen Elizabeth” will make its first deployment to the region, and that should be an opportunity for the UK to show its friends and allies in the region, including South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia and New Zealand, that we are committed to free navigation in international waters and stand with them against any threats of aggression.

I must say something about cuts to the Army. Cyber and AI are very important, but they do not enable us to retake Port Stanley on the Falklands. For some operations you still need quite a few boots on the ground. The tooth-to-tail ratio, or combat-spear element, has been in decline since the First World War. That might result in better logistics, support and care, but the reality is that only about 20% to 25% of our troops do the fighting. With a force of 72,500, that leaves at best 18,000 Armed Forces personnel to do the actual front-line fighting on the ground. That is not enough to take and hold a small town.

Finally, the review overstates Russia’s capabilities and underestimates those of China. It has been a major geostrategic error to encourage Moscow and Beijing to seek an ever-closer union. On Russia, the immediate emphasis now should be on all parties implementing the Minsk agreements and standing down their forces on the borders, which I believe, in Russia’s case, has already begun.

16:39

[Baroness Stroud (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the publication of the integrated review and on the repositioning of Britain, as we begin this next chapter in our nation’s history.

I applaud our commitment to facing up to the changing world in which we find ourselves and the determination to emerge match fit to face a more competitive world—but one in which we hold on to our own values of democracy and our way of life, freedom of speech and our commitment to the rule of law and voluntary exchange. I also applaud our commitment that these remain the best model for the social and economic advancement of humankind.

However, the review rightly notes that China’s growing international stature is by far the most significant geopolitical factor in the world today, with major implications for British values and interests and for the structure and shape of the international order. However, we appear to adopt two independently competing positions in our response to China. First, we declare China to be

“the biggest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security.”

However, secondly, we commit to “deeper trade links” and “more Chinese investment” in the UK.

As we witness China’s behaviour in Hong Kong and against the Uighurs, as we observe the breaking of WTO protocols in ongoing trade wars with our closest allies and as we uncover the threat to our intellectual property, we have to ask whether this is a sustainable strategy. If this is a holding strategy, at what point do the Government believe that this balancing act needs to come to an end, and what steps are the Government taking to ensure that we are match fit and not vulnerable if the time comes to change our position? If this is a long-term strategy, what action are the Government taking to protect the UK from the “biggest state-based threat” to our economic security?

I also draw attention to the review’s approach towards the continent of Africa. The review says,

“We will be active in Africa”.


Later, it says:

“We will work in partnership with South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Ethiopia and Ghana”.


However, there is then very little more in the review. Africa, as a continent, has huge potential: prosperity in Africa is at its highest ever level, the world’s ten fastest-growing cities are in Africa, and African cities make up 40 of the top 50. Growing these markets will be essential for the development of global economic openness and security initiatives in the region. Could my noble friend the Minister outline our strategy for the development of trade relationships and investment, where appropriate, in Africa?

My final comment is on the development element of the review. I welcome the commitment to supporting emerging nations to become self-sufficient through trade and economic growth, but I ask the Minister to consider a two-fold strategy. Our work on How Nations Succeed found that the most successful examples of development came in nations that took responsibility for driving their own transformation. This presents a raft of opportunities for the UK to devise a new approach to cultivating and supporting the development of prosperity in emerging nations as a new development strategy, which would then allow us to focus our traditional aid budget on crisis response, which is where the British people are so extraordinarily generous in responding.

There is much in this review that is outstanding, but I ask the Minister to consider the circumstances in which we would come off the fence in relation to China, the opportunities that exist for mutual relationships with the nations of the African continent, and a new approach to supporting the long-term development of nations.

16:43

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, the review rightly identifies that the risks of unsustainable population growth, pandemics, global warming and unconstrained migration are a backdrop to all the decisions that we are making. Taken in conjunction with harnessing rapidly changing technological advances, such as AI, quantum computing, the use of space, hypersonic missiles, robotics and unmanned combat vehicles, warfare is clearly changing.

The Defence Secretary is right in preparing for future wars, not past battles—but he is being economical with the truth when he calls this the biggest defence investment since the end of the Cold War. Notwithstanding the much-welcomed four-year uplift to defence spending, announced last November, the key driver of this review has been cost. Talk of

“giving us deployable, capable forces, equipped with next-generation capabilities”

is not able to disguise a further reduction in our nation’s overall military capability. Clearly, there needs to be investment in technology—space, cyber et cetera, as I mentioned—but this puts ever more pressure on an already overstretched budget. The plan as presented has a great deal of jam tomorrow but pain today. Should there be conflict in the short term—when you look around the world, you see that there might well be one—we would have to fight with what we have got.

One of the most striking aspects of the integrated review, mentioned by a number of speakers, was the change to UK’s nuclear posture. There are a number of sensible possible rationales for some of the changes but, without doubt, the increase in future holdings of warheads has huge a diplomatic downside. These changes need to be much more clearly explained. Under Putin’s direction, Russia has spent billions modernising its nuclear forces, but of more concern is its development of new, more devastating, nuclear delivery systems—some of them are quite horrifying—ditto China. This nuclear dimension is of greater concern in view of the collapse of international agreements to limit numbers of warheads, types of delivery systems and the complex confidence-building measures that used to be in place to avoid the risks of war by miscalculation. Again, this needs to be resolved and addressed.

The review quite rightly reinforces the commitment to, and importance of, the NATO alliance for UK and European security. France’s President Macron is looking forward to an entirely new transatlantic “security architecture” for the 21st century: his vision is an all-European defensive collective that is armed up and can act independently and ahead of, in his words, a brain-dead NATO. The idea is delusional and highly damaging both to NATO and the security of Europe. President Biden has made sweeping declarations that Europe and the United States must again “trust in one another”, but President Macron’s agenda seems to cross his bows, and our nation needs to be wary of being drawn into this European army defence quagmire.

I am delighted that the Government have recognised the importance of sovereign capability in procurement and its importance for national resilience and indeed the economy. The decision to base our defence and security on a maritime strategy is welcomed and absolutely the right thing to do. As you can imagine, it was music to my ears to hear the Prime Minister say:

“If there is one policy that strengthens the UK in every possible sense, it is building more ships for the Royal Navy”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/11/20; col. 488.]


A highly capable and resilient globally mobile military will help to prevent a major world war far better than a heavy division deployed on to the continent.

However, one has to face the stark reality that our already embarrassingly small frigate force, as mentioned by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, is going to shrink still further over the short to medium term. When will the next five Type 26 frigates be ordered—we have been waiting for ages for them to be ordered—and are we speeding up the delivery programme? The present programme is glacially slow and dramatically adding to the cost.

16:47

[Lord Polak (Con)]

I refer the House to my interests, as laid out in the register, and congratulate my noble friend Lord Godson—he is my friend—on his thoughtful maiden speech. I associate myself with the tributes to Frank Judd. We sat together on the Justice Committee; I am deaf in one ear and he was deaf in both; that is probably why we got on so well. I enjoyed sharing a birthday with him. May his memory be for a blessing.

On page 63, the very welcome review states:

“We will not hesitate to stand up for our values and our interests where they are threatened, or when China acts in breach of existing agreements.”


Before the ink has had time to dry on page 63, our resolve is being tested: when colleagues in this House and the other place are placed on a sanctions list by China, our values and interests are indeed being threatened. I would be very interested to learn from my noble friend the Minister what “not hesitating to stand up for our values” means in practical terms. The Chinese Communist Party’s genocidal policies towards their own citizens—the Uighurs in Xinjiang—are appalling, and, as I have stated over and over again, wringing our hands helps no one, least of all those suffering day after day.

While on the subject of wringing our hands, on 7 December, I spoke to the genocide amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, raising the matter of the five alleged Rwandan genocide perpetrators living freely in Britain. Once again, I call on the Minister to ensure that this matter is dealt with before CHOGM in Rwanda in June. Could the Minister explain the delay? Rwanda is proud to host CHOGM and values its relations with the UK, but the report states:

“We will partner with the African Union on climate and biodiversity, global health security, free trade, crisis management, conflict prevention and mediation, the Women, Peace and Security agenda, and promoting good governance and human rights.”


This is a fine list, but if we talk about good governance and human rights, we should lead by example.

I am, however, sure that my noble friend the Minister will be hearing from the co-chairman of the newly established all-party war crimes group, led by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, and the right honourable Andrew Mitchell MP, which was set up specifically to remove this stain on Rwanda-UK relations.

The review rightly confirms that our interests and values are closely aligned, talking of

“a world in which democratic societies flourish and fundamental human rights are protected”.

In the light of these fine words, will my noble friend the Minister confirm that the UK will not attend Durban IV? As the right honourable Member for Chipping Barnet, Theresa Villiers, said in the other place, it is the anniversary of the 2001 UN conference against racism, which degenerated into hatred, anti-Semitism and disproportionate criticism of Israel.

The review rightly argues that poor governance and disorder are likely to increase the space for terrorists and extremist groups to operate in the Middle East. The report, however, says little about the intentional and malign efforts of the Iranian Government to sow disorder, enrich uranium, destabilise Governments and sponsor extremists and terrorists throughout the region. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ terrorist proxy Hezbollah continues to hold the people of Lebanon hostage as their country faces economic collapse. The IRGC is menacing the Kingdom of Bahrain through arms exports to pro-Iranian militias and is prolonging the tragic war in Yemen through support for the Houthi rebels, who are directly attacking Saudi Arabia.

Does my noble friend the Minister agree with me, therefore, that the UK has an opportunity to play a significant role: to take a lead and bring about a more resilient Middle East by proscribing and therefore marginalising the Iranian revolutionary guard corps?

16:52

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, parts of this integrated review read more like a party manifesto than a closely argued analysis of threats and capabilities. We learn a lot about the Prime Minister’s ambitious visions for the future but much less about how they are to be achieved.

Some sections invite satirical comment. Page 64 tells us:

“The UK is the nearest neighbour to the Arctic region.”


That will surprise the Governments of Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Finland, Canada and Russia—unless Boris Johnson is planning to imitate Donald Trump by making a takeover bid for Greenland.

Like others, I was struck by the many contradictions and inconsistencies in the document. It proclaims that Britain is a “soft power superpower” which benefits from the global reputation of the BBC, our world-class universities and the quality of our cultural life. It also underlines and emphasises the importance of integrating domestic and external policies. In domestic politics, however, Ministers are hostile to the BBC and dismiss and condemn university teachers, artists and writers as the core of the despised metropolitan liberal elite. Observers in other countries notice these attacks on such national assets, even if the Prime Minister’s vision is too short-sighted to recognise them.

There is a fundamental contradiction between the assertion of sovereignty as a core value and the representation of the UK as a champion of multilateralism, global order, human rights and international law. The Chinese are right to say that criticism of their treatment of the Uighurs is an invasion of their sovereignty. We defend global values against Chinese sovereignty. The British Empire could both assert its full sovereignty and impose its views on others, but we no longer have an empire and we cannot pretend to be world-leading in all the fields that the Prime Minister fondly imagines that we can. He should talk more about partnership and less about leadership.

The identification of Russia as the most direct threat to British security is undermined by the priority given to the Indo-Pacific. Almost the only reference to the European Union—as has been remarked—states that the UK will

“find new ways of working with it on shared challenges”

but it does not tell us what those new ways might be. Later, it says:

“We will also look for ways to work more closely with European partners, including France and Germany.”


Ministers should not have to look very far: the UK has had a bilateral defence partnership with France since 1998, although Conservative Ministers have done their best not to tell Parliament about it since 2010. Indeed, one Defence Secretary told me directly that he accepted close co-operation with France provided that Parliament knew as little about it as possible.

The claim that the UK will become the European power with the strongest presence in the Indo-Pacific is also an exaggeration: the French are there already with territories, citizens, armed forces and diplomats. In winding up, therefore, will the Minister commit the Government to informing Parliament about the current state of the Franco-British defence partnership and plans for its future development? A review that devotes so much more attention to relations with India than with our nearest continental neighbour—Europe’s other military and global power—is not an entirely serious document.

16:56

[Baroness D'Souza (CB) [V]]

My Lords, the integrated review is both comprehensive and strategic in its foreign policy intentions. The emphasis on recognising the strengths of our allies, and modestly aiming to lead where the UK is best placed to do so, is welcome.

That said, however, there are many potential contradictions and many issues to resolve before the strategy can begin to be implemented and we can begin to know what global Britain will actually look like in years to come. There are difficult issues, not least of which is the fact that we should perhaps be a little careful of being welcomed with open arms by all those nations with which we now seek much closer relations.

The Indo-Pacific pivot is predominantly about economic and security aspects. We all know, however, that democratic nations prosper better than autocratic ones in the longer term, so if economic growth is to be achieved in the Indo-Pacific region it has to be under- pinned by good governance, adherence to the rule of law and common international standards.

What might be the threats to these liberal democratic values, and how might they be limited? Clearly China and its foreign policies and actions represent a major challenge within the Indo-Pacific area. The PRC’s tactics for gaining influence are many and varied, including the belt and road initiative—seen at its most aggressive in the purchase of the Sri Lankan Hambantota deep-harbour seaport, now owned by the PRC—illegal actions in Hong Kong and Taiwan and military threats in the South China Sea.

However, there is as yet no coherent democratic alternative to combat these aggressive developments, and other nations in the region, such as Laos and North Korea, do not even begin to nod towards democratic norms. The UK will need to encourage and establish—urgently, I think—new forums for co-operation, the opportunities for which may well arise during the UK’s leadership of the G7 and the COP 26 meetings this year. A collective of south and east Asian countries, the US, the UK and other European states should agree on measures to strengthen sustainable rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific area, and, in the very near future, provide details of any plans for such informal or formal forums and with which allies they are to be formed.

Meanwhile, the UK should insist that the democratic nations in the region continue to demonstrate their own democratic credentials, such as press freedom, protection of minorities and upholding civil liberties, and the UK should itself closely follow a dual approach, involving equal measures of cautious collaboration with, and severe criticism of, the PRC.

17:00

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, this has been an interesting and important debate. I just want to make a straightforward point on what appears in section IV of the review, “Strategic Framework”.

Under “Sustaining strategic advantage through science and technology”, the review refers to

“The rapid pace of change in science and technology”


that is

“transforming many aspects of our lives, fundamentally reshaping our economy and our society, and unlocking previously inconceivable improvements in global health, well-being and prosperity.”

So far, so good; soft power is of crucial importance in maintaining our security. However, it then goes on to refer to “systematic competition” between states and claims, somewhat tautologically, that

“countries which establish a leading role in critical and emerging technologies will be at the forefront of global leadership.”

The emphasis on the importance of science, and health in particular, is correct. We know this from the acknowledged success of developing and delivering the Covid-19 vaccine programme, which is so important in our return to anything like a normal life. However, the emphasis on competition in this context is simply wrong. Again, we know this from the vaccine programme, where co-operation between actors, public and private, from many different parts of the world, has been crucial to its success. It is a truly international effort, where co-operation, not competition, has been the foundation.

Unfortunately, this is part and parcel of the Prime Minister’s global Britain rhetoric—just sound and wind, with no substance. When he attributed the vaccine’s success to capitalism and greed, he was wrong. The idea that private ingenuity and naked competition produced the vaccines is a complete fantasy. The infrastructure that produced Covid-19 vaccines was nurtured in publicly funded universities, public institutes and heavily subsidised private labs.

The review itself demonstrates this lack of understanding of how science works. It claims that the UK is already a science and technology power, with references to

“the UK’s successful S&T base.”

It then fails to explore the basis for that success in any detail, because to do so would expose the Government’s mis-steps in this field.

A clear example of this is the Government’s wishful thinking in the box headed “Attracting global talent to the UK”. Having the right ambitions, appointing an office for talent, and relying on a yet-to-be-revealed, points-based immigration system are not enough, in practice, to provide the reassurance that top talent requires. It is not just about Brexit, but that hardly helped.

The Government also fail to provide the money to back up their claims. Having lofty ambitions is of nothing when insufficient resources are provided for our leading research institutions. The recovery from Covid will need research, for example on the mental health effects, in order to offer the better treatments and services that are needed.

In his introduction, the Minister acknowledged the importance of co-operation in the field of science. This is particularly important when it comes to health research. Co-operation is the way forward, not competition.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

The noble Lords, Lord Sarfraz and Lord Walney, have withdrawn, so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar.

17:03

[Baroness Prashar (CB) [V]]

My Lords, this review marks a step forward in defining the UK’s role in the world against the background of geopolitical shifts. It provides a comprehensive and nuanced framework for developing our road map and increasing our influence as a force for good.

The proposed, so-called Indo-Pacific tilt will inevitably give prominence to trade, defence and security, but to be effective it has to be all-embracing. It should include greater involvement in the region, through actions on climate change, promotion of common values and the rules-based international order, and initiatives, through cultural and educational institutions, to deepen understanding of countries in the region, particularly India, given its strategic salience in the region. While the relationship with India is historic, the time has come to recalibrate the relationship. This relationship should not be seen through an archaic lens but developed through greater knowledge sharing and brought into sync with contemporary realities.

Advancement of free trade, which is seen as the centrepiece of global Britain, will require the mobilisation of all our capabilities, particularly in science and technology, as fully recognised in the review, and all our soft power assets. There is no doubt that we possess a unique set of capabilities and soft power assets, but these need to be mobilised and adapted for the demands and opportunities of our modern world. Our approach has to be based on collaboration and mutuality. Again, the review recognises this, but this will have to be made a reality by ensuring that sufficient resources and capabilities are available in our institutions and government departments. We need to use all our soft power tools with skill and make creative use of new technologies and talent, if our role in the world as a force for good, as envisaged in this review, is to be realised.

We must not undervalue institutions such as the British Council, the BBC and other cultural assets. What they bring to the table should be an integral part of the thinking in developing our strategy and approach. Over the years, these institutions have helped to build trust in the UK. Currently, we are in the lead as far as soft power is concerned, but we retain only a slim lead. France, Germany, China, South Korea and Russia are now spending increasingly more on the promotion of their soft power. We ignore that at our peril.

The other network whose full potential is not sufficiently recognised in this review is the Commonwealth, which provides an effective forum for promoting common values and the flow of trade. To have credible moral authority to espouse the values that underpin liberal democracies, and to be an effective convener, the UK’s reputational resilience at home and abroad is vital to our international influence. Actions must speak louder than words. The review recognises that, in an interconnected, complex and multipolar world, prosperity and security at home is dependent on how we operate on the world stage. The Government’s commitment to restore 0.7% of GNI, and making clear that being a leading donor is central to their values agenda, is a signal in the right direction, but again we need an indication of when this will happen.

Post Brexit, we have started the process of developing a more positive narrative about our place and role in the world. This will require, as many have said this afternoon, setting our priorities, leading by example, shifting the mindset in many of our institutions, having humility in our approach, developing new capabilities and deepening our understanding and knowledge of the changing world—and not ignoring Europe. It will, therefore, be helpful to hear from the Minister what steps will be taken to set priorities, build on our currents strengths and develop new capabilities within government departments and other valuable institutions, which the realisation of this review will require.

17:08

[Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the decision to produce an integrated review of foreign policy, defence, security and international development was brave, and it is to be welcomed. The UK’s role in the world must encompass all these areas, along with trade and international economic policies. They require a strategic framework under which they can operate in a seamless way without inconsistencies and clashes of objectives.

Unfortunately, the report does not match up to its ambitions and, therefore, should not be seen as more than a work in progress. It requires more refinement as well as more detail about how it can be resourced, particularly in areas such as cybersecurity in a context of rapid technological change. To implement its aim, it will also require sophisticated cross-departmental collaboration. Before it can be deemed to be a proper strategy, a rigorous review about what its priorities are is needed. There is a long list of aims, without assessment of how much importance should be attached to them. The danger of the something-for-everyone approach is that it can lead to a nothing-for-anyone outcome. Further detailed is also needed on the means as well as the ends, and I hope that this will include working with European countries that share our values and are our near neighbours.

Let me move from these general points to two areas where the report either disappoints or is misguided. They are development aid and the ratcheting up of our nuclear capability.

The decision to make a binding commitment in law to spend 0.7% of GNI on development aid reflected our values in wishing to help millions of people around the world out of poverty, as well as our interests to promote economic growth and technological advances in developing countries. This commitment should be seen as a defining element in what it means to be a global leader. It does not come through in the integrated review. Development gets short shrift. Will the Minister tell the House how the Government can drop the legal commitment to 0.7% without parliamentary agreement to amend the law? It simply will not do to reply that it all depends on the fiscal situation and what that allows. The Government will be breaking a law enacted quite recently.

There are many examples of aid programmes that will be decimated by deprioritising development as in the review. Let me just mention a couple. First, over the years, Voluntary Service Overseas has built for the UK a worldwide reputation on the use of volunteers in development aid. If the cuts the Government are threatening are imposed, VSO will have to withdraw from many countries in which it operates.

Secondly, in Yemen, the war has led to a humanitarian disaster in which millions of children are suffering from malnutrition and hundreds of thousands of people face famine. There is the strongest possible need to increase substantially our aid to Yemen, not to cut it by half. Can the Minister indicate why the Government are doing this? Can she at the same time explain how they are integrating continuing support for the Saudi-led coalition in this war with a diplomatic role in the UN in brokering peace and providing aid to the civilian population? That does not look like integration to me.

My final questions relate to the proposal to increase greatly the number of warheads in our nuclear stockpile. Since our financial position is being cited as reason for cutting our aid, how can it allow massive expenditure to increase our nuclear capability? Does the Minister also agree that the timing could hardly be more unfortunate? Later this year, the review conference on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty will take place. What will other countries participating make of the UK’s policies on disarmament—which presumably we are still pressing for—when we are rearming and not disarming? It makes a mockery of any claim to political or global leadership in this area.

17:12

[Viscount Waverley (CB)]

My Lords, I noted the carefully crafted messaging in the integrated review with regard to China. I had it in mind to offer a contribution today that addressed the challenges and opportunities, strategic and otherwise, with that state. However, for reasons that have been well rehearsed in this session, I should delay further consideration to the autumn. Suffice it to say at this stage that I believe the review struck an apt approach.

I do not automatically espouse the theory that the reduction in development aid funds necessarily presents a doomsday scenario. What is required more than anything is a combination of realism and innovation: a new-found approach incorporating zero tariffs and the opportunity to trade with the developed world to the benefit of all; and a phased adjustment in current tax and payments to source, rather than for ever having taxes paid by a corporation where they are tax-resident is worthy of consideration. A Cross-Bench debate next week will provide an opportunity to expand on that theme.

Many noble Lords have rightly referred to science and technology. It is my pleasure therefore to offer the Minister some potential low-hanging fruit. This would normally have been the gift of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, but he has focused our minds elsewhere, so I shall run with the baton.

The Government are not eligible to be a party to the International Science and Technology Center—ISTC—headquartered in Kazakhstan, due to the circumstances of Brexit. Association, however, would bring the benefit of having an oven-ready partner in the arena of non-proliferation in chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats, in addition to being a useful mechanism to implement the Government’s defence and security policies overseas. Its DG can add to the storyboard; renewed association would enable the UK to be a party to an existing international organisation for the exercise of non-proliferation and against world hybrid threats. The ISTC had several MoD projects that were being implemented and I understand that funds are still on account.

Countering state nuclear and security threats, in addition to having access to over 100 countries’ facilities, including a worldwide database of institutes and scientists, with their expertise, would be a useful asset to the United Kingdom. It would include access to antimicrobial resistance and disease surveillance, and other endemic medical and related threats, nuclear forensics, biosecurity experience and a useful mechanism to further R&D and S&T co-operation. Multilateral agreements, at the diplomatic level, are in phase for member countries that, when translated, would mean it not being necessary to negotiate separate bilateral agreements when wishing to implement a project in any country. The alternative would be to fund projects that meet our international non-proliferation and security objectives on a case-by-case basis.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

The noble Lords, Lord Hannan, Lord Berkeley and Lord Desai, have withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria.

17:17

[Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]]

My Lords, the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy is an excellent document that covers all aspects of the UK’s place in the world. It went beyond the parameters of a traditional review, which is wonderful news. I welcome my friend—and I will call him my friend—the noble Lord, Lord Godson. It was wonderful to hear his maiden speech, but it is so sad about the noble Lord, Lord Judd, whom we will miss so much. He would definitely have been speaking in this debate.

The review covers geopolitical and economic shifts in particular, China and the challenges of climate change, health risks, illicit finance, serious and organised crime and terrorism, and it requires collective action, so it is spot on. Its emphasis on science and technology is fantastic. It talks about the US being our most important bilateral relationship, and the Five Eyes, to which we are glad to belong. It talks about Europe and says:

“The UK in the world: a European country with global interests”.


It says that we have a unique position among European countries. I always say this: we may have left the European Union, but we will never leave Europe. It is still our largest trading partner by far, accounting for 45% of our trade.

On the tilt to the Indo-Pacific, I am so glad that we are using that term, because we used to use “Asia-Pacific”. Speaking as a person of Indian origin, “Indo-Pacific” is the right term from India’s point of view. We are talking about the importance of that region, which includes countries such as India. The whole Commonwealth makes up less than 10% of our trade, but look at India: bilateral trade with India is worth £24 billion; with Canada, about £20 billion; with Australia, about £20 billion; and yet trade with China is worth £100 billion. The CPTPP, if we joined it, would be worth £110 billion.

The Prime Minister, in going to India, was going to announce an enhanced trade partnership to take trade with India up to £100 billion by 2030 and to make more of the Commonwealth. The Indian-origin people who live in the UK are the living bridge of 1.5 million, which the report talks about. When it comes to India, we need to have a strategic relationship. It is not just about trade and investment, it is about defence and security. India is a member of the Quad with the US, Australia and Japan. We need to be in those sorts of strategic defence relationships with countries such as India. Climate change, health, migration and mobility, education and science and technology are important issues.

Soon India is going to allow British universities to open there. Our high commission and embassy network around the world is very strong. We have one of the best networks in the world. It is a great element of our power. Universities are not specifically mentioned enough in the report, yet our universities are one of our strongest elements of soft power.

The report talks about science and technology. As president of the CBI, one of my priorities is to get businesses and universities working closely together, particularly with regard to science and technology, research and development and innovation. There is no better example than the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine, a collaboration between a Swedish-British company, Oxford University and AZ, headquartered in Cambridge, in collaboration with the Serum Institute of India, the largest vaccine manufacturer in the world.

I am proud to be an honorary group captain in 601 Squadron of the RAF. It is good to see that the new Space Command, which will be within the RAF, has been announced. I think space will be a hugely important aspect in future and I am glad that it is covered in detail in the review. On the other hand, I am concerned that the Army is going to be cut. We need boots on the ground. There has to be a critical mass. Do the Government agree? I also see that diversity and inclusion are included, which is very important.

To conclude, we are at the top table of the world: NATO and the G7. This is a watershed year as we are hosting the G7 and COP 26, a great opportunity for the country. We are 1% of the world’s population and the second largest recipient of inward investment in the world.

Lastly, the report clearly shows that we have the best combination of hard and soft power of, I think, any country in the world.

17:22

[Lord Sheikh (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome the integrated review and its ambitious vision to make the UK a stronger, safer and more prosperous country. The UK plays a role on the global stage, and I am glad to see that the Government will make tackling climate change and biodiversity loss their number one international priority. As we prepare to host COP 26 in November, that is very important as the climate crisis is one of the biggest threats to international security and stability.

This week, the Government announced that they will put into law the world’s most ambitious climate change target: to reduce emissions by 78% by 2035 compared to 1990 levels. That is commendable, but what plans do they have to make those targets a reality? This year, we have seen the creation of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which has integrated diplomacy and development, and we have signed an increasing number of trade agreements. As someone who is actively involved in promoting trade in overseas countries, I can already see the benefits of this.

Greater trade and investment and more openness with other countries will reap many mutual benefits and help to drive prosperity. With that prosperity comes growth that leads to new innovations in technology that will protect people and the planet. Will the Minister tell the House when the Government intend to restore the aid budget to 0.7%, so that we can properly help to drive prosperity across the world?

The UK has unique soft power, which has been incredibly important in building relationships and domestic ties abroad as well as supporting the economy. I have a close connection with, and am a freeman of, the City of London. I know that the City is widely respected and recognised for supporting significant global trade and investment.

We very much appreciate the soft power exercised by the BBC and the British Council. When I travel abroad, I am told that the BBC provides reliable news. In my student days, I stayed for two years in a British Council residence. I am a great supporter of its work, which I have seen in person when I have gone abroad. The British Council helps to promote common values, understanding and knowledge so that different communities can live in harmony with each other.

As well as soft power, the UK has an impressive security and defence framework, which is perhaps one of our greatest strengths. I am very interested in the well-being of our Armed Forces, and I welcome the increase in defence spending to 2.2% of our GDP, which is the biggest increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War and makes us the second-highest defence spender in NATO.

17:26

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB) [V]]

My Lords, the Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, rightly says that the UK’s ambition should be to emerge as “a force for good”, while in his introduction to the integrated review, the Prime Minister says that

“liberal democracy and free markets remain the best model for the social and economic advancement of humankind.”

In drawing attention to the all-party groups of which I am an officer and to the current inquiry of the International Relations and Defence Select Committee, on which I serve, I want to drill down into the review’s objective that we will tilt towards the insufficiently defined Indo-Pacific and how we will constrain the Chinese Communist Party.

The integrated review recognises China’s increasing assertiveness as

“the most significant geopolitical factor of the 2020s”

and

“the biggest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security.”

It describes China as a “systemic competitor” and says the UK

“is likely to remain a priority target for such threats”,

including “cyber-attacks, disinformation and proxies.”

Yet, conspicuously, the review does not even mention Taiwan, which recently recorded its largest CCP air incursion yet. Why not? Combined with Russia’s opportunistic sabre-rattling against Ukraine, these challenges by autocracies pose a serious threat to international order. The Foreign Secretary has described the CCP’s industrial scale violations against the Uighurs and we call out China’s violations, including CCP sanctions on parliamentarians exercising their duties and BBC journalists committed to truth telling. We say we will stand up for them and for our values but continue to conduct and increase business.

I ask the Minister directly: is it licit for a signatory to the convention on the crime of genocide to do business as usual with a state credibly accused of genocide? Given what we know about Xinjiang’s concentration camps and slave labour, what changes are we making to our supply chains? What are we doing to make the UK less dependent on China, especially in strategic sectors?

Recent reports by Jo Johnson and Civitas warn of infiltration of UK higher education, intellectual property theft and worse. In its report Inadvertently Arming China?, Civitas says that more than half of the 24 Russell Group universities have worrying links with Chinese military-based institutions, including agencies involved in developing weapons of mass destruction. It says the UK’s response is

“a picture of strategic incoherence.”

We need to do better than that.

The threat to our way of life is symbolised by the treatment of Dr Li Wenliang after he tried to warn the world about Covid and the CCP’s imprisonment of a courageous young lawyer and citizen journalist, Zhang Zhan, tortured for going to Wuhan to expose the truth. It is symbolised by the jailing of Hong Kong’s democrats and the genocide of Uighurs.

In response, the review rightly emphasises and urges a multilateral response and for the UK to aim to be:

“the European partner with the broadest and most integrated presence”.

What can the Minister tell us of the proposed D10 alliance of democracies and President Biden’s suggested summit of democracies? What would the UK’s role be? Might potential allies like Singapore and Vietnam be excluded by too-narrow definitions? Strengthening ties with established Asian democracies, such as Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, and encouraging emerging democracies, such as Indonesia and Malaysia, and enhancing alliances with long-standing friends such as Singapore and India, will be key.

We must stand with those fighting tyranny in Burma and Hong Kong, and those like Australia who are sanctioned for speaking out. Note that China’s threat that Five Eyes countries should be careful lest their eyes be poked blind—their words—has been followed by New Zealand’s decision to leave Five Eyes. To achieve the review’s laudable aims, we must strengthen our alliances, stand with our friends and see how the frequently suborned multilateral architecture, especially at the United Nations, can be salvaged.

17:31

[Lord Wei (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am thankful that we can have this crucial debate today and I declare my interests in the register. For some time, it has been clear that we are in the midst of an epochal shift, in which the old certainties of the post-war era are being eroded. In their place come times that are much more volatile and unpredictable, and in which our historical approaches may need to be adapted. I welcome the review and the Government’s determination to give birth to a more agile, inclusive and responsive approach to our national security that recognises new threats and rivalries, and the innovation needed to address them.

I want to focus my remarks on the issue of resilience and the role we can all play to help mitigate some of the shocks on the horizon. There will continue to be shocks, as the review correctly highlights, whether climate-related, a major hack or a drone attack on a major city or installation, or indeed another pandemic—manmade or zoonotic. Covid-19 has shown that it does not require a nuclear arsenal or an army, cyber or non-cyber, to effectively shut down large parts of the British economy and system; you just have to fill our hospitals with patients.

What is being done to tackle situations that, without much initial bloodshed, could bring our economy and society to its knees, through asynchronous attacks? How do we not just build resilience in our major institutions, with the usual contingency plans, resources and responses, but go further to make the structure of our government, society and services nearly pandemic, drone or weather-proof? It seems that a lot of this has to be about how we protect the internet from, for example, future quantum-based attacks, and how we use it in future to go beyond Zoom and video calling to enable our economy and services to function in a more decentralised away. It is also to do with how communities can cope if supply chains are broken or the internet and power supplies are taken down. What guidance will the Government give to civil servants, leaders and the public on how to prepare for such eventualities?

How can innovation and the private sector play a role, enabling more people like Kate Bingham to help reshape our services with the connections and insights they might have to go beyond any groupthink that might linger? Indeed, in healthcare the response so far is admirable, and we must praise those front-line workers who have sacrificed so much—including those in my own extended family here in Britain—to keep us safe. However, tough questions need to be asked about how resilient the NHS and healthcare is in this nation. In the initial wave of Covid, it looks like nearly one-third of patients caught it in hospital. Waiting lists have grown, in some cases to over a year, and death rates have increased for non-Covid-related causes, which may be due to people not accessing or being asked to access diagnosis and treatment.

Will a resilient NHS look to move more diagnosis, scanning and treatment away from hospitals and into the high street and community or even, using the latest technology, into our own homes? Will we continue to rely on a large hospital-based system that creates an easy target for enemies, human or non-human in nature, to bring us down? Will we consider creating perpetual trials to accelerate vaccine and drug development and to accelerate the adoption of new devices ahead of being hit by sudden and chronic health-related challenges, where the system would be overwhelmed and might struggle to respond from a standing start?

What about education or business? How can we ensure those who cannot work online are able to continue to operate on-site in safe ways in future pandemics? Should we encourage people to have both digital and physical work skills, so they can still have a job even if their digital or physical work environment is compromised? What does a resilient foreign policy look like?

Many other areas like these need looking at further. I believe that, in future, the winners may not just be those who are big or well-armed, or who have soft power, but simply those who can survive by being resilient enough to fight another day.

17:35

[The Earl of Sandwich (CB) [V]]

My Lords, anyone who follows developing countries will long remember Frank Judd for his advocacy of poverty reduction and sustainable development. Here, we miss him right now for his eloquence and the determination he would have brought to this debate.

Like the noble Lords, Lord Wei and Lord Bilimoria, I am generally impressed with the spirit of the review and the direction of travel, and even by the impatience with which the Government have raised their flags overseas. I do not go with buzzwords like global Britain, but I welcome their recommitment to the international and the multilateral. I am pleased that the FCDO wants to be a force for good—soft power is here to stay—although without enough visas. There is also a determination to deal with online harms, sexual violence and a range of human rights violations, and we see new approaches to science and technology, with phrases such as “building national resilience”. Some of these are either brave promises, far ahead of reality, or they are things the Government ought to be doing anyway.

All this laundry list, as the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, dubs it, comes at a more positive time, when the new US leader, Joe Biden, is back with similar aspirations, scrubbing out policies left behind by his predecessor. Climate change, Covid and SDGs are all getting proper attention. Of course, I welcome the recommitment to aid and the sustainable development goals, but the cuts are damaging and unnecessary, and the departmental merger blurs the line further between aid, defence and diplomacy. The Government have ignored their own aid target and the Minister will, I hope, repeat the assurance that the legally binding 0.7% target will return next year. The Minister was rightly besieged with questions about this this morning and I am sure he will look forward to the debate brought by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on this next week.

On the merger, I focus briefly on the Government’s intention to tighten up the cross-government Conflict, Stability and Security Fund. Was the merger really necessary, if we already had joined-up arrangements for that fund? The FCDO claims that the fund will receive £874 million for 2021-22, but Bond, on behalf of aid agencies, says that the fund has been cut by £363 million and that aid to conflict-affected states could be cut by between 50% and 90%. Could the Minister please confirm these figures? For states such as South Sudan and Yemen, a cut on that scale would be devastating. Could the Government not publish a breakdown of aid cuts by country and sector, so that we can all speak from the same statistics in future?

We are seeing the relaunch of Britain as a trading nation, with rollovers and FDAs signed almost every week. The question arises whether the new official enthusiasm for human rights is being properly translated into trade deals. The answer is that there is a formula of words in the explanatory memorandums and in some of these agreements, but we have yet to see consequent actions anywhere. On China, of course, we have a difficult and at times impenetrable way between sanctions on human rights and the benefits of normal diplomatic and trade relations. Meanwhile, what is happening to the Foreign Office post Brexit? Is it becoming submerged in trade and aid? The letters F and O surely need more attention.

Can we really be global without Europe? Chatham House puts it quite bluntly: the Government’s

“longer-term ambitions for relations with the EU are notably thin”.

We will be living under the shelter of the US again, and our policy towards Ukraine will follow NATO rather than EU initiatives. We may see reconciliation with Iran, but we must, as many have argued this afternoon, continue to work closely with our European neighbours on all these issues, even if we have—blindly, in my view—shut ourselves out of their meeting room.

17:40

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I start by declaring my interest both as a member of the Army Reserve and, with specific relevance to this debate, chairman of the Reserve Forces 2030 review. It is a pleasure to be able to contribute to this timely debate and, in particular, to be able to follow the thoughtful contribution from noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, much of which I agreed with.

The announcement of the integrated review has been long anticipated, but from a defence perspective it is worth highlighting that the scene was set last September with the publication of the integrated operating concept, the first in a series of three announcements, with the integrated review the second and culminating most recently in the Command Paper. Taken together, these represent in grand strategic terms the ends, ways and means for defence over the next decade. Together, they set out a new approach as to how we will use our Armed Forces in an era of persistent competition and the rapidly changing nature of warfare. Representing the most significant evolution of UK military thought in several generations, it will lead to a fundamental transformation not only of the UK military, but how we use it.

The integrated operating concept articulates a clear distinction between operating and war-fighting, and reasons that, while ultimately we need a contingent capability for our military to defend the nation and fight a war, our military should also be out and about operating, helping to build alliances and responding to crises as opposed to simply training as a contingent force. The integrated review builds on this approach and makes clear that we must be prepared to be enduring in our commitment and forward deploy our Armed Forces. There is no better example of this being put into action than the recent forward deployment of both HMS “Trent” to be based in Gibraltar and HMS “Montrose” to Bahrain.

These deployments, along with similar commitments from both the Army and Navy, are not just symbolic. During my time as a Defence Minister, the one consistent message that I received from our partners across the globe was that, while the training and support that we offered were viewed as some of the best in the world, we would be there one minute and gone the next. This is why this move to persistent engagement will be central to defence’s ability to contribution to the global Britain agenda.

Shortly, the carrier strike group led by HMS “Queen Elizabeth” will undertake our most ambitious deployment for two decades, encompassing the Mediterranean, Indian Ocean and east Asia. If the vision the integrated review provides is that the security of our nation is where defence meets prosperity meets global influence, then this deployment, and those that will follow, will be flagship events for defence’s contribution to global Britain.

Despite this sequence of announcements, there is still one aspect of the “means” piece of the jig-saw missing, the yet to be published Reserve Forces 2030 review, and it is on this that I would like to focus my remaining comments. The review is important, as it will address many of the concerns expressed by noble Lords about the size of the regular Armed Forces. Building on the success of the Future Reserves 2020 review, which focused on growth and investment in the single service reserves, which has seen the size of the reserve grow over the last 10 years, the terms of reference for the latest review were different.

Rather than looking down and in at the use of reserves by single services, we were tasked with looking up and out. At its heart, the review is about people and skills and how defence, industry, government and wider society can share them. This means looking at how the Reserve Forces can provide capability across government departments, deliver networks into industry and academia and reinforce national resilience and homeland security, as well as renewing and strengthening the link with society in general.

The national experience of the Covid pandemic has demonstrated in no uncertain terms how the nation needs to pull together in times of crisis and how government, Parliament, state institutions, industry and the general public rely on each other. The vision the review describes is of empowered Reserve Forces—

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

We may have lost the end of the noble Lord’s remarks. I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham.

17:44

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am delighted to be able to speak in this debate and, in particular, grateful to the usual channels and the Ministers.

May I move down slightly? The reason I was trying to speak from there was because it is quite useful to be able to see the Minister, and I quite like the idea that the Minister is able to see me. The last two times I tried to speak in the Chamber, because I am so small, where I have been standing I could not be seen. The Table now has five screens and a mobile phone on it. Obviously, if I was standing where I was not audible that is also not desirable. It merely highlights the problem that I want to start with—other than thanking the Ministers—because I want to raise the issue of the hybrid Parliament very briefly.

I thank the Ministers for being willing to have today’s debate. What was happening, before half-term, was whole series of very short statements. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, pointed out that there were a whole set of very short debates in which we got a minute to speak. So a five-hour debate is very welcome. However, even a five-hour debate meant a time limit of four minutes for Back-Bench speakers. That would be fine, except the rules about presence in the Chamber mean that several noble Lords had signed up to speak and found they were scratched because they had not worked out how to be in the Chamber when there were no seats for them. This debate is going to finish well within the five hours, but we lost 10 people who would have been speaking. It is regrettable that the current situation means that we are not able to debate quite as we would like.

We are in a situation where we have the integrated review and, as the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, has just pointed out, a whole suite of other defence-related documents that are coming forward. This means that we have the opportunity to discuss a range of issues on more than one occasion.

The main focus of today is intended to be the integrated security, defence and foreign policy review, also including development aid—multiple, different topics, which, as several noble Lords have already pointed out, is not particularly integrated. It is a document that covers a huge range of topics, all very interesting, not necessarily integrated and scarcely strategic. It is noticeable that the former Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, who currently chairs the International Relations and Defence Committee, on which I had the pleasure of sitting until recently, pointed out some of the defects in this report.

Those were very similar to the defects in the Government’s policy on Africa, which is allegedly a strategy but in fact a whole set of disparate issues. That is very much a problem with the so-called integrated review. It talks a great deal about ambitions; it raises, slightly heuristically, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, pointed out, the Prime Minister’s ambitions. It flags up some of the Government’s ambitions on defence, diplomacy and development, but it does not allow us to go into sufficient deal. There are lots of ambitions, but do the Government really know how they are going to deliver on those ambitions?

We had a statement on defence expenditure, as the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, pointed out: a welcome uplift, but for the next four years. Anyone who knows anything about defence procurement knows that four years is not very long for procurement. We have had calls to know when the frigates are going to appear. That is likely to be, as we have already heard, the late 2020s. So an uplift in defence expenditure for four years was welcome, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out, it is, to an extent, putting the cart before the horse, because it did not enable us to understand what defence commitments needed to be. In particular, when we heard about an increase in defence expenditure, nobody had any inkling whatsoever that the Government were suddenly going to pull a nuclear rabbit out of a hat and announce that they were going to raise the number of nuclear warheads.

Almost nobody in this debate has spoken in favour of raising the number of nuclear warheads. Only the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, suggested that this is desirable. He suggested that for us to have a deterrent, it needed to be credible, and that we perhaps need more warheads. But the vast majority of opinion in this debate has been quite different. It has reflected the view of the noble Lord, Lord McDonald of Salford, that there is a very real danger that we will potentially be in breach of international law and our own commitments under the non-proliferation treaty if the Government think of raising the number of nuclear warheads. So I ask the Minister what assessment she, the Secretary of State and anybody in the Ministry of Defence has given to our commitments under the NPT, and whether increasing the number of nuclear warheads is seen to be in breach of Article VI or any other aspect of the NPT.

When I asked the noble Baroness the Leader of the House a similar question when the announcement on nuclear weapons was made, she said that there was no issue in terms of our international obligations. Is that true legally? Beyond that, have the Government thought about what the ramifications are politically? One of the people who spoke most eloquently at the time of the announcement was Tobias Ellwood, chair of the Defence Committee in the other place. He pointed out that if this Government feel that the security conditions are so dangerous and that chemical and biological weapons somehow necessitate a situation where the United Kingdom needs to increase its nuclear capability, why is that not true for China or Russia? Why is it not true for Iran, which may wish to have nuclear weapons? What messages do the Government think the nuclear policy sends?

I think the Minister understands that it is very difficult for the Government to get anything through this House when the view across the Chamber is almost unanimous. She has done sterling service to your Lordships and, I hope, to decision-making on the overseas operations Bill by taking matters such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity back to the Ministry of Defence and the other place, following a sense that we were united. There is a very similar view on nuclear, so please could she take that message back?

Beyond nuclear, money clearly matters in the context of development as well. Many noble Lords have focused on that, including my noble friends Lord Purvis of Tweed, Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Lady Northover, and they are right. There are serious moral issues. If we want to be global Britain and say that we wish to export our values, some of that is surely about what we do with our soft power. Saying that we are going to decimate our bilateral aid, particularly to a country such as Yemen, is completely unacceptable. Have the Government given any thought to the messages they are sending by saying that they will increase defence expenditure—which I welcome as our defence spokesperson—but are cutting aid at the same time? What message do the Government think that sends? Could the Minister tell us when she believes that the 0.5% will go back to 0.7%? I realise that this might be a little contentious within the governing party, but some sense that we will move back to 0.7% next year would be extremely welcome.

Beyond development and defence are the questions of diplomacy. As certain noble Lords pointed out, that seems rather lacking. We need to hear more about diplomacy and soft power generally. The Government talk about the BBC World Service but spend the rest of their time denigrating the BBC, so what is the message?

As we have heard from many noble Lords, this review seems in many ways to be disintegrated, not integrated. It seems to send mixed messages—about our soft power and about the threats, particularly how we deal with China. As my noble friend Lord Alton—and I do call him a friend—pointed out, there are questions about genocide and how we deal with a country such as China. This integrated review, like so many government statements, appears to send mixed messages.

Perhaps trade trumps defence and short-termism trumps long-termism and our values; I very much hope that it does not, but I would be grateful if, in her response, the Minister could tell us what values are most important to this Government. And so that we have a sense of strategy, not a laundry list, could she tell us what the Government’s priorities in this review will be?

17:55

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Godson, on his excellent maiden speech, a convention I am also happy to follow. I really do look forward to hearing more of his contributions in these debates, particularly on international matters.

The review is welcome but, for it to be worth the paper it is written on, the Government need to end the contradictions and inconsistencies that have undermined our role on the world stage. In the past year, we have shown ourselves to be a compassionate nation, built on community solidarity and co-operation to bring our country through this pandemic—values that the Government should reflect in their foreign policy.

Being a force for good in the world means always taking a stand against injustices, human rights abuses and suffering, even when it is inconvenient to do so. Here, I also pay tribute to my noble friend Frank Judd. If he had been here today, he would have been making these points most powerfully. He was a man of principle and a good man.

Being a force for good in the world also means putting forward a vision for a more secure and prosperous future, delivering on the UN’s global goals and fulfilling our commitment to the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people. I say to the noble Lord, Lord McDonald: a common strategy does not require a big super-department—certainly, a strategy involving diplomacy, defence and development does not need a big department. Rather, it needs a commitment to work together across Whitehall. In respect of our position of shadow Secretary of State for International Development, one of the many reasons the excellent Preet Gill is in the shadow Cabinet is that she will champion, and is championing, the sustainable development goals—something that I think is missing from our Government at the moment.

One of the issues that has been a theme throughout this debate is the disconnect between the Government’s words and their actions. How can we be the champion of human rights while selling arms to Saudi Arabia, which has contributed to creating the world’s most desperate humanitarian situation? How can we aspire to be a world leader in international development while breaking our legal commitment to 0.7%?

To maintain our enormous influence on the world stage and be a moral force for good, we must be consistent in our approach. That means once again becoming a champion of the rule of law. The UN is almost alone in its popularity as a global institution—this is based on its track record of promising and providing stability and progress. As the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, said in his introduction, we should take pride in our role as a founder and use our influence to put our principles into practice.

We must also stand unwavering in our support for NATO and strengthen our bond with our closest security allies. As my noble friends Lord Reid and Lord Browne and other noble Lords have made clear, in increasing the number of nuclear warheads the Government are not only undermining the non-proliferation treaty but recklessly out of step with our NATO partners. The Opposition are fully committed to the renewal of Trident to deter the most extreme threats to our national security, but we must also use our position as a nuclear power to support multilateral controls on these weapons.

As the review acknowledges, we will always be strongest when we work in tandem with our closest partners, including on our international obligations, but there is no question that our position as a bridge between Europe and the United States has been put under strain over the past decade. Together, the United Kingdom, the United States and Europe can provide an unrivalled united front for the values that we share. Beyond the US and Europe, we must also deepen our co-operation with other Five Eyes allies and look to emerging powers that share our world view.

This includes some in the Indo-Pacific, particularly fellow democracies, but this will require more than warm words, and the Government’s plans seem rather thin on detail. Do the Government see this as a relationship based on security, regional trade or values? Where are the resources to back up this proposal? Will the Government request partner status at ASEAN? Do they intend to work within existing structures only?

We must strengthen our ties with civil society too, and there is little of substance on this in the review. Women’s organisations, charities, faith groups, trade unions and other organised communities have all demonstrated that their role in geopolitics is indispensable. When nations fail in their most important task of providing safety, security and freedom for their people, it is always civil society that leaps first to their defence.

By breaking legislation and a manifesto commitment to spend 0.7% of GNI on ODA, the aid budget weakens our credibility, as we have heard in this debate. It will strip life-saving support from millions of people. I emphasise that maintaining 0.7% would not have avoided cuts—it would still have resulted in cuts to ODA—but it would have helped to maintain the order of priorities. That is where this review and the Government have got it wrong. When will the Government come to Parliament, present the change to legislation and put it to a vote?

Our commitment to the world’s poorest and most vulnerable also means spending on the right aid projects. That means supporting multipliers, such as nutrition, clean water and education, which have myriad development benefits. Unfortunately, today’s announcement has shown that the Government are cutting these exact schemes.

As we heard in the debate, analysis by Save the Children suggests that spending on education for girls—a government priority—would reduce by 25% compared with 2019-20 levels. The charity also estimated that spending on humanitarian preparedness and response would be cut by 44%. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, on Tuesday the FCDO Yemen development director told the Commons IDC that the decision to cut foreign aid to Yemen by more than 50% was made without any assessment of the impact on women, those with disabilities or internally displaced people. We have to assume that these cuts are being made with no coherent strategy or clear understanding of their impact.

I am pleased to see that the integrated review confirmed that a development Command Paper will soon be published, but there seems to be no timeline for when this will appear. Can the Minister confirm when the international development paper will be published?

As my noble friend Lord McConnell said, the cuts to ODA will make the world a more unpredictable and insecure place. Notwithstanding the moral and humanitarian case to alleviate poverty, this continued injustice will often manifest itself in national, regional and global threats if not addressed. Inequality can be one of the biggest drivers of insecurity.

Despite the review confirming that Russia poses the greatest threat to our security, the Government still have not fully implemented any of the Russia report’s recommendations. I repeat the question I put to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, earlier: can the Minister explain the Government’s failure to implement any of the Russia report’s recommendations? After all, it is 18 months since the report was completed and more than three years since the chemical weapons attack in Salisbury.

The Government’s inconsistency towards Russia must end, and the same can be said for China. The integrated review warns that China

“presents the biggest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security”,

yet the Government have refused a complete audit of our relationship with that state. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, often speak against the human rights violations in Hong Kong, yet the Government are reopening two UK-China government investment forums that closed when Beijing introduced the national security law. They are being reintroduced when that law is not only still there but being enforced, and people are being put in prison as a consequence of it. It does not make sense.

The Foreign Office sanctions officials for their persecution of the Uighur Muslims, but refuses—as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said—to back Trade Bill amendments preventing deals with countries suspected of genocide. I hope the Minister will respond to the noble Lord’s specific questions on this point.

I will conclude. If the Government are truly to stand for our values as a nation, their actions must match their words. I repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said: we need once again to become a reliable and trusted voice in the world.

18:08

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)]

My Lords, we have had another fascinating and thought-provoking debate today on the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy. One of the challenges confronting anyone who has to wind up on such a debate is that I am confronted by a fragrant pot-pourri of issues relating to foreign affairs, international development, defence, global relations, global engagement and response to threats. It was a wide-ranging debate. I have a heap of notes here and will try to address some of the major issues that have emerged.

As usual, shining through the debate is the expertise your Lordships have in this area. In my opinion, the House of Lords is quite simply a centre of excellence. This was eloquently recognised by my noble friend Lord Godson in his excellent maiden speech. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I am very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, found the debate welcome and that I am visible to her. It has never occurred to me that that was a particularly pleasing prospect to anyone but, none the less, if it affords her pleasure, it is certainly always a pleasure to see her.

I will touch shortly on some of the substantive points that have been made. However, I would first like to return to our starting point and remind colleagues of the context in which this review has been conducted. As the most comprehensive report into our defence and foreign policy since the end of the Cold War, our review paints a compelling picture of the complex, diverse and swiftly changing pace of the threats our nation faces. I welcome the recognition of the significance of the integrated review which my noble friend Lord Howell, among others, articulated. I also welcome the comments made about the review by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, and the noble Lords, Lord Robertson and Lord Alderdice, albeit that they had questions to ask. I much appreciated the comments on the integrated review by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I think it is recognised, across the Chamber, that this is a significant piece of work.

We are living in an age of systemic competition. As events on the Ukrainian border remind us, we are confronting a resurgent Russia, whose threat to our security goes well beyond the conventional. Contrary to what the critics say—that this is an incoherent or a disintegrated review—it is the very opposite: it is demonstrably integrated. We live in a world where Iran and North Korea continue to destabilise their regions. An increasingly assertive China is modernising and expanding its military. All the while, globalisation and technological proliferation are challenging western security and paving the way for global competition over our trade, values and interests. Gone is the notion that our western scientific edge will always win the day. Today, cheap technology gives our enemies more options. Gone, too, is the idea that our competitors wage war only in open, large-scale conflicts. Instead, our adversaries seek to target our values and undermine our democracy through insidious activity in the grey zone. Instead of a binary state of peace and war, we find ourselves caught in a netherworld of constant competition

However, as my noble friend Lord Ahmad outlined so eloquently, the integrated review presents a bold strategy for British leadership and the domestic renewal that will strengthen our nation at home and abroad. It is a plan to use all the levers of state in unison, with defence playing a vital role. It is a plan not just to protect our people and interests but to invest in science and technology while using our international networks and global footprint to exert influence intelligently to deliver an effective impact.

Coupled with our integrated operating concept and the recent publication of our defence Command Paper, we have signalled the biggest shift in our defence policy for 30 years. Backed up by the Prime Minister’s additional investment of more than £24 billion, defence will now modernise to meet the dangers and deliver a bold vision for the United Kingdom. That vision will see our Armed Forces operating on both sides of the threshold of armed conflict, and see our people forward deployed, persistently present—my noble friend Lord Lancaster rightly emphasised the importance of that—and constantly campaigning to protect and promote the interests and values of the United Kingdom and her allies. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is absolutely right about the essential role of allies and partners. That is the only route to aggregate improved global security and collaboration. I am pleased to confirm that the UK’s tangible dynamism is generating global interest. I will now try and pick up on some of the specific and incisive points which have been raised.

The noble Lord Tunnicliffe, kicked off the debate in response to the Minister. I have the greatest affection and respect for him, but today I thought he was rather more of a glass-half-empty rather than a glass-half-full kind of chap. I felt that his reflection was an unjustifiably gloomy perspective. I would just say to him, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, pointed out, that our whole approach is predicated on threat. That is what determines what kind of defence capabilities we need. As I said, we have over £24 billion to reform and reduce our Armed Forces, the defence budget will grow consistently between 2019-22 and 2024-25, and it comfortably exceeds both the 2019 manifesto of a 0.5% increase per year and the NATO commitment of 2% GDP on defence. We are securing jobs, investing in UK industry, buying the next-generation capabilities and research, especially in cyber and space. I would therefore say to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that this is an exciting perspective. That is a defence future brimming with optimism and purpose, and this delivers what we need to meet the threat.

I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, was trying to nip at my ankles like a wee Scottie dog. I do not agree that this is the vision of a small gorilla beating its chest. This outlines the vision of a country that reflects a serious global defence contributor.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, like the noble Lord, Lord West, raised the issue of the Royal Navy, which is exceedingly important. As they are both aware, our ambition is to grow to 24 frigates and destroyers in the 2030s on a continuous drumbeat of shipbuilding, strengthening the union and UK prosperity to become the foremost naval power in Europe. They will be aware of the exciting shipbuilding programme now in course.

At times I rather felt that the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, was looking through the rear-view mirror rather than gazing through a clear windscreen. She is absolutely right: of course the EU is important, and we seek a positive partnership with it, both diplomatically and in respect of defence. We are of course the biggest defence spender in Europe and the second largest spender in NATO. Separately from that, we have strong bilateral relationships with various EU countries and we certainly value these engagements. So there is no question that the EU and EU member states matter to us. The security of the EU directly impacts on the security of the United Kingdom and I wish to make clear that we are very conscious of that and will never overlook it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, among others, including my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns, my noble friend Lord Balfe, and the noble Lords, Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord McNicol of West Kilbride, raised the important matter of overseas development assistance. I have to say—I am probably repeating information already known to your Lordships—that we are having to pitch our ODA spend on the back of a UK economy 11.3% smaller than last year and undergoing its worst contraction for 300 years. The deficit this year is projected to be double its peak during the financial crisis. Against that backdrop, we have been forced to prioritise public spending, including temporarily—it is temporary—reducing ODA from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI. However, we are still spending £10 billion on ODA in 2021 and we will return to 0.7% of GNI as soon as the fiscal situation allows. It may be worth reminding your Lordships that the UK remains a development superpower because, based on OECD data for 2020, the UK will be the third-largest ODA donor in the G7 as a percentage of GNI in 2021, spending a greater percentage of our GNI than the United States, Japan, Canada or Italy.

On girls, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, that this year the FCDO will invest £400 million in girls’ education in over 25 countries. I, too, was conscious of something missing today, which is simply Lord Judd, who was her close friend. He was an indefatigable contributor to our proceedings and it has been clear from the comments made during the debate just how much he is missed.

My noble friend Lady Anelay and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, asked questions about the approach to ODA. The approach marks a strategic shift, because it is putting our aid budget to work alongside our diplomatic network, our science and technology expertise and our economic partnerships in tackling global challenges. That is an important tandem to observe and will make sure that spend is more focused and, I hope, more effective in creating and achieving positive results.

The noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord McNicol, and others, raised the matter of Yemen. The UK has pledged at least £87 million of aid to Yemen, making us the fifth largest contributor in 2021-22. That is a floor; it is not a ceiling. The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, asked specifically about the development strategy. As he noted, the Government committed to publish a new international development strategy, building in the priorities set out in the integrated review. The strategy will be published this year.

The matter of Afghanistan was raised specifically by my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns. I reassure her that the UK remains committed to supporting Afghanistan on its path to a more peaceful and positive future. We are working closely with the United States and with our NATO allies and partners to support a secure and stable Afghanistan. That is a relationship—and interest—which endures beyond withdrawal. The focus now has to be on the political solution and political progress. That is the next phase of Afghanistan’s development, as the Secretary General of NATO so pertinently pointed out.

The matter of nuclear was raised by a number of your Lordships, including the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, my noble friends Lord Howell and Lord King of Bridgwater, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and others. A number of issues arose. As a general observation, I would say that a policy of deterrence requires a deterrent which deters. It has to maintain that ability. That is why an increase in warheads was deemed necessary. In relation to the stockpile of warheads, we have consistently stated that we will both keep our nuclear posture under constant review in the light of the international security environment and the actions of potential adversaries. We will maintain the minimum destructive power needed to guarantee that the deterrent remains credible.

The modest 15% change to the nuclear stockpile ceiling and the decision about how we deploy weapons have been taken in the context of a darkening threat picture, and driven by changing judgments on what we need to deliver to achieve the required deterrent effect. So I say to the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, that as a Government we need to make these judgments and we do not apologise for doing that. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, specifically raised the issue of compliance with the non-proliferation treaty. We are fully compliant with the treaty and we are deeply committed to our collective long-term goal of a world without nuclear weapons under the framework of the NPT. That is only achieved by multilateral disarmament, not by weakening the deterrent.

My noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater raised an important issue about communications in these difficult times. We certainly live in a very different environment to what many of us were familiar with some years ago. We take the crisis communications very seriously. We are confident that our nuclear communications infrastructure remains resilient in the current heightened security environment.

In a slightly different context, my noble friend Lord Wei raised vital matters such as defence, security and resilience against new threats of pandemics and disease. How do we respond, and what is our pre-planning? It is a vital issue and reaches across several government departments, so I shall look at his contribution in Hansard and offer to write to him.

A number of your Lordships raise the important issue of climate change in general and COP 26 in particular. The noble Lord, Lord McDonald of Salford, specifically raised this issue and was interested in overseas territories, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, also raised the matter. I noted her comments, but I would argue that the UK is making major efforts in setting an example and, with COP 26, providing a vitally important forum for discussion later this year in the very attractive city of Glasgow.

My noble friend Lord Sheikh asked about climate change. It will be the UK’s highest international priority for the next decade, including biodiversity loss. This week we committed to set in law the world’s most ambitious climate change target, cutting emissions by 78% by 2035 compared to 1990 levels. As I mentioned a moment ago, the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, was interested in the particular position of the overseas territories. We have been working closely with all overseas territories in the lead-up to COP 26. We regularly meet representatives, and our officials engage with them, from the overseas territories to ensure that their unique perspectives are accurately represented.

A number of noble Lords raised the issue of China. I thought the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, gave a fascinating analysis on China. He rightly identified the delicate and difficult balance of maintaining discourse and trade, but calling out wrong, however and whenever it arises. That is certainly the approach we would wish to pursue. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, provided a thought-provoking commentary in relation to the United Kingdom articulating a moral authority. That is a profound and wise observation, and the integrated review reflects an aspiration by the UK to demonstrate, articulate and represent our values and principles and be a global leader for positive achievements in that respect.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and my noble friend Lady Meyer also asked about our attitude to China. I have to say that we see China’s increasing international assertiveness and scale as potentially the most significant geopolitical shifts in the 2020s, but continued co-operation is vital in tackling the most important international challenges of this generation, from climate change to biodiversity. We will always call out what is wrong. The IR reflects that we need to adapt to a more competitive world; we are clear that China is vital to solving global issues, so we must and will continue to find areas on which to collaborate.

The matter of the Indo-Pacific came up. Specifically, the noble Lord, Lord, Bilimoria, echoed by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, had an interest in that issue. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, not just for his positive reception for the integrated review but for his helpful commentary on the language we use when we describe it as the Indo-Pacific tilt. I am pleased that that resonates positively with him. The Indo-Pacific is critical to the UK’s economy, our security and our global ambition to support open societies. By 2030, the Indo-Pacific will represent more than 40% of global GDP. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked what the Indo-Pacific tilt means. I would say it is a healthy miscellany of objectives, because it means a commitment to long-term, integrated engagement to ensure that we safeguard UK economic and security interests, and that open societies and values are protected. That requires both a diplomatic and defence endeavour.

My noble friend Lord Risby raised the matter of Russia and how we are responding to Russia. NATO is the enduring guarantee of our security and we work continuously to strengthen alliance capabilities to defend and deter threats emanating from Russia. We will work with NATO allies to ensure a united western response, combining military intelligence and diplomatic efforts. UK forces have a leading role in NATO’s enhanced forward presence in the Baltic states to enhance Euro-Atlantic security, reassure our allies and deter adversaries.

My noble friend Lady Meyer asked about Ukraine. We are unwavering in our support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, as we have demonstrated through sanctions on Russia since 2014, and we are monitoring the situation closely. Since 2017, our Russia strategy and cross-government Russian unit has brought together the UK’s diplomatic, intelligence and military capability to maximum effect. It is a working example of the key principles of the integrated review.

I think the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, was the only Member to raise specifically the issue of the new structure for the National Cyber Force. I seem to have made a poor effort of reassuring him, so let me try and do slightly better. It is a partnership between Defence and GCHQ and the Defence and Foreign Secretaries have joint political accountability. Official level governance bodies engage the full range of departmental stakeholders in the National Cyber Force’s requirements, delivery and long-term development. The Ministry of Defence is providing the growth funding for the cyber force, so the MoD Permanent Secretary is the principle accounting officer who sits in defence and as part of strategic command. There is a well-integrated awareness of activity and a well-understood programme for activity.

I conclude by focusing specifically on defence issues. Let us be clear: the threats have moved on and we must move with them. The next decade will bring unprecedented levels of investment in defence, with more than £85 billion spent on new equipment and support in the next four years alone. There will be new ships and missiles for the Royal Navy, new fighter aircraft and sensors for the RAF and a more deployed and better protected Army. The threat is global; our reach with our allies and partners is also global. At home, our mission to protect our people and enhance our economy will extend to the very fingertips of the union. Even as we continue to support British industry and security to the tune of billions of pounds, we will keep strengthening our global leadership, shaping the open international order for the better and remaining a force for good in the world.

Above all in defence, we will continue backing our people. They are not just this nation’s finest asset but the best possible ambassadors for global Britain. In the midst of Covid, our brave men and women in the Armed Forces have shown their mettle. We will do more than give them the skills they need to adapt to a new age. We will do more to look after their families. We will do more to reach out to every corner of our country and create a military that truly represents us all. Our reforms will create a bolder force for a bolder Britain; a force both resilient and ready to confront the complex challenges of an era of constant competition.

This has been a fascinating debate. I repeat my appreciation of and gratitude to noble Lords who have contributed. It has been an important opportunity for an exchange of information and views and I thank noble Lords for their participation.

Motion agreed.

18:32

Sitting suspended.

Arrangement of Business

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Lords Chamber

Announcement

19:20

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing. For the Motion on the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure, the time limit is one hour.

Diocesan Boards of Education Measure

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Lords Chamber

Motion to Direct

19:20

Moved by

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham [V]]

My Lords, the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure updates and replaces the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure 1991, which provides the legal framework within which the Church of England’s dioceses engage and work with church schools.

Church of England schools are an integral part of our state education system. There are currently over 4,600 Church of England schools attended by some 1 million children. To put this in context, one-quarter of primary schools and over 200 secondary schools are Church of England schools, and some 15 million people alive today went to a Church of England school.

This Measure is necessary to reflect a number of significant changes to the education landscape over the past 30 years. The key changes made by the new Measure before your Lordships’ House reflect the current and anticipated future educational environment in which diocesan boards of education are and will be operating.

First, the new Measure makes suitable provision in relation to academies and multi-academy trusts to reflect the development of the school system since 2010.

Secondly, diocesan boards of education will still be able to be independent charities and, like other such charities, to be either incorporated or unincorporated. However, the new Measure will also enable a diocesan board of education to be a statutory committee of the diocesan board of finance rather than an independent charity. The option to be a statutory committee of the diocesan board of finance regularises the position for a number of dioceses which, as a matter of practice, already have similar arrangements in place which they have found to be a useful governance arrangement.

Thirdly, under the new Measure, each diocesan synod must make a scheme designating a body as the diocesan board of education for the diocese and must send the scheme to the Secretary of State. This simplifies the current system which requires the Secretary of State’s approval. The Department for Education has been consulted and supports this change.

Fourthly, the new Measure makes express provision for joint diocesan boards of education for two or more dioceses. Although we do not yet know how many dioceses will pursue this option, it was considered important that the new Measure provides explicitly for how such joint boards should be set up, structured and, if necessary, unwound, to facilitate more joint boards being set up in future.

The Department for Education and the Charity Commission were consulted on the Measure and the amendments to it, and any points raised have been addressed. The Measure passed with comfortable majorities in the General Synod. The Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament considered the Measure on 23 February 2021 and has reported that it considers the Measure to be expedient. It has issued a favourable report, which it has laid before the House. I beg to move.

19:24

[Lord Jones (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for his incisive introduction and acknowledge the quality and helpfulness of the General Synod’s briefing and explanatory notes. I also acknowledge the fine, experienced chairmanship of our committee by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.

One wishes the Measure well. It was interesting to hear from the right reverend Prelate the scale of the Church’s school numbers. I served for some 10 years as chair of a diocesan board of education and lifelong learning. For the board, our bishop was everything; the archdeacon too was always there for us. The small professional staff was vital. One saw first-hand the Church’s gift of schooling to those 19th-century far-flung settlements and communities of the heartland—cefn gwlad. The Church admits the humblest. We pioneered a first: a joint Roman Catholic and Church in Wales high school, which remains a success, in an urban industrial township. One’s education portfolio and three administrations in the 1970s were helpful in all this.

As a diocesan chair, one always paid tribute to lay members. Mostly female, our lay members brought much wisdom, insight, mature judgment and common sense—dedication indeed. With them, it was always a case of “Everything for the child”, for the child’s safety and for their future. There was also a shrewd understanding of the teaching force as well.

The right reverend Prelate might agree that paragraphs 101 and 102 in the comments and explanations on the right to attend and speak are relevant and of importance. The General Synod is illustrative of democracy. In paragraphs 127 and 128, under the heading “Final Approval”, we are given the bald, transparent voting figures for all three Houses. With more than 50 Westminster years’ membership, I appreciate good majorities.

In conclusion, my query to the right reverend Prelate as he delivers this Measure is: will he elaborate a little more on Section 18, which is headed “Guidance”? Here the references to the Archbishops’ Council come across as perhaps somewhat opaque, so could he please elaborate? Might he also say a little more about the right to attend and to speak? That is so relevant and so important.

19:28

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I am chair of the Ecclesiastical Committee. As the right reverend Prelate has said, this Measure came before our committee, and we considered it. It was extremely straightforward and, without any delay, we deemed it expedient.

19:28

[Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, the comments and explanations document produced by the General Synod’s legislative committee explains that:

“The Diocesan Boards of Education Measure updates and replaces the Diocesan Boards of Education Measure 1991 … which provides the legal framework within which the Church of England’s dioceses engage and work with Church schools.”


Providing further explanation, the committee says:

“The Measure enables DBEs to be a statutory committee of their Diocesan Board of Finance and provides clarification of the existing two options for the constitutional form of DBEs”.


The Church of England has established many schools that have educated tens of thousands of students of all races and faiths. All the schools are charitable entities and are properly monitored by the charities board. I recommend that these schools should continue to operate as they have been set up.

19:30

[The Lord Bishop of Durham [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Jones, asked about the Archbishops’ Council. The Archbishops’ Council is the standing statutory body established by the National Institutions Measure 1998 to co-ordinate the work of the Church of England more broadly, so it is a very suitable body to give guidance. If the noble Lord is content, I will write to him on the rights to attend and speak. I assure him, however, that those rights will continue to be upheld.

I thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and indeed the whole Ecclesiastical Committee, for the work that they have done on this Measure and all the work that they do for us on Church of England Measures. I thank the noble and learned Baroness for her chairing—indeed, this measure was expedited very speedily when we presented it to the Ecclesiastical Committee.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, for his kind comments on the Church of England schools and our role in education. The House may be assured that we are fully committed to maintaining this work and continuing to improve it in every way that we can while seeking to uphold the very highest standards of education in every area that we are responsible for. With my thanks to noble Lords for their comments, I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Cathedrals Measure

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Lords Chamber

Motion to Direct

19:32

Moved by

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Cathedrals Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham [V]]

My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Cathedrals Measure provides a new statutory framework for the governance and regulation of 41 Church of England cathedrals and will replace the framework in the Cathedrals Measure 1999.

Our cathedrals are national treasures which it is both a privilege and a responsibility to care for. They play a key role in our national life, with some 10 million adults visiting them each year and around 330,000 children enjoying free educational visits to them. All our cathedrals are involved in work in their local community, and they contribute around £220 million annually to the UK economy, employing some 3,000 people. Above all, however, each cathedral serves its community as the mother church of its area and the seat of a bishop, and remains in use for its original purpose.

Through their presence, worship and varied work, cathedrals reach out to their local and wider communities in many ways. We have seen examples of this in recent days when cathedrals have been local centres of prayer, remembering and thanksgiving. It is, therefore, vital that the legislative framework in which our cathedrals operate facilitates and supports them in functioning in a manner that is fit for purpose in the 21st century.

As noble Lords may recall, a commission was established by the archbishops in the 1990s, chaired by Baroness Howe of Idlicote, whose work laid the foundation for the Cathedrals Measure 1999. However, best practice in charity governance, safeguarding and the heritage sector has moved on considerably since then. In January 2017 the Archbishops’ Council established the Cathedrals Working Group, partly in response to a request from the Bishop of Peterborough following a visitation at Peterborough Cathedral the previous year that had revealed a number of concerns about cathedral governance.

The Cathedrals Working Group was charged with taking a hard look at how the legislation governing cathedrals was operating and what improvements should be made. It was to have a particular focus on financial management, major building projects, safeguarding, accountability, oversight and scrutiny. In its final report in June 2018, the working group set out its recommendations for the future of cathedrals. The most significant of these related to the governance, structure and regulation of cathedrals. The General Synod endorsed the recommendation of the Cathedrals Working Group in July 2018. Legislation was introduced to give effect to the recommendations that involved legislative change. The result is this Measure.

During the progress of the legislation in the General Synod, those responsible for the Measure listened carefully to the cathedral community and consulted with the Charity Commission. A number of significant changes were made to the draft legislation during the synodical process. While the Measure before your Lordships’ House reflects the key recommendations of the Cathedrals Working Group’s report, those recommendations have been implemented in a way that is supported by those in the cathedral community. This is demonstrated by the strong support that the Measure received at final approval, with no General Synod members voting against it.

The principal changes that the measure will bring about are as follows. Cathedrals will be brought within the regulatory jurisdiction of the Charity Commission. Cathedral chapters will have a majority of non-executive members. Cathedrals will no longer be obliged to have a council undertaking certain statutory functions separate from the cathedral chapter. Instead, all trustee functions will be held in the same place and exercised by an expanded chapter. The Charity Commission was consulted on the Measure and on the amendments to it, and any points raised have been addressed. I thank the staff of the Charity Commission for their helpful comments and prompt responses, particularly given the additional pressures on them during the pandemic.

The Measure, like its predecessor, does not apply to the Cathedral Church of Christ in Oxford, because that cathedral is, uniquely, both a cathedral and a college of the University of Oxford. It is also a royal foundation, governed by an entirely different statutory regime in the form of statutes made under the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Acts 1877 and 1923, and therefore outside the scope of this Measure. Although I am aware that some noble Lords have concerns in relation to Christ Church, I do not intend to comment on these matters, partly because they are outside the scope of the Measure.

I understand that any proceedings relating to the dean under the Clergy Discipline Measure are not technically subject to sub judice rules, but the Companion to the Standing Orders nevertheless states that

“it is recognised that Parliament should not generally intervene in matters where the decision has been delegated to others by Parliament itself.”

These matters are subject to a statutory process under the Clergy Discipline Measure, and I therefore intend to say no more about them.

This Measure is vital to provide cathedrals the governance structures that they need to support effective safeguarding, healthy finances and increased accountability going forward. The Ecclesiastical Committee considered the Measure on 23 February 2021, reported that it considers the Measure to be expedient and has issued a favourable report which it has laid before the House. I beg to move.

19:38

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, this Measure is unsatisfactory because it seeks to improve the governance of England’s cathedrals but, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham has just said, it does not apply to the one cathedral whose governance has, for the last two and a half years, totally broken down: Christ Church, Oxford, which is both a cathedral and a college, and forms a substantial part of the University of Oxford. There is still no end in sight to this governance breakdown, and therefore it is essential to draw the situation to the attention of the House. I am glad to see that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford is also in his place.

Christ Church is a complex undertaking. The cathedral serves a diocese of 2 million people across the Thames valley and includes a cathedral school. The associated college has 700 students, 70 academic staff and a total staff of 400. It has an endowment of £600 million and an annual income of more than £30 million. It also maintains a leading research library and a public art gallery with a renowned collection of Old Masters.

The chief executive of this hybrid institution is the Dean of Christ Church who, since its foundation by Henry VIII, has had to be a vicar of the Church of England. The problem is that, to all intents and purposes, there is not a dean at the moment, and there has not been for two and a half years, since the relationship broke down between the present dean and the governing body of Christ Church, which comprises both the cathedral canons and the university academic staff of the college.

I do not want to get into the reasons for this breakdown, which, as the right reverend Prelate just said, are the subject of ongoing proceedings, but the key point in terms of governance is that, after two and a half years, legal fees now in excess of £1 million and repeated votes of no confidence by the governing body in the dean, who is not undertaking his functions, there is still no resolution in sight, nor even an indication of who might provide such a resolution. This is because, under the Christ Church Oxford Act 1867, which still applies, while there is a so-called governing body for the management of the college, that body has no role in the appointment of the dean, which lies with the Crown alone, nor does the governing body have power to remove the dean, except in the extreme case of conduct deemed scandalous.

Furthermore, the dean’s appointment is not term-limited, and there is no external body that has the power to resolve the breakdown between the dean and the governing body. Neither the Church of England nor the University of Oxford has any legal powers of intervention, and while the Charity Commission has regulatory oversight, this does not extend to a power to resolve disputes of this kind, unless the commission deems charitable trustees, who in this case are the entire governing body of 70, to be in breach of their charitable trusteeships, which is not an issue here.

We have to hope and, indeed, pray that this paralysis can be resolved quickly and a solution found to the position of the current dean, but once that happens it is essential that there is a radical reform of Christ Church so that this byzantine structure does not continue. I suggest two obvious reforms that should take place before the appointment of a new dean. First, the cathedral and the college should be divided as institutions. Secondly, both should get modern leadership and governance: the cathedral should come under this governance Measure and the college should become a conventional university institution that appoints and supervises its own chief executive. The post should not be restricted, as now, to a vicar of the Church of England, which is deeply inappropriate for a university in the 21st century, as well as contradicting equalities legislation.

Christ Church, Oxford, is one of England’s world-class institutions. Its governance has collapsed and it needs sorting out urgently.

19:43

[Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]]

My Lords, my interests in this debate are recorded in the report on the Measure, particularly that I am high steward of Ripon Cathedral, which is mentioned in the Measure. I gave notice of my intention to speak when we were in the Ecclesiastical Committee meeting because I want to record my particular displeasure about how the Clergy Discipline Measure, the CDM, operates, and how two priests I know have been treated by the Church. Speaking to this Measure is the only way I can address my concerns and bring them to your Lordships’ attention.

The first case concerns a parish priest who was accused, wrongly and maliciously, of taking money from a parishioner. He was arrested, interrogated and put into a prison cell overnight. This was an absolutely horrendous experience, made worse because he had absolutely no idea what it was all about. He is still recovering from it some two and a half years later. To make matters worse, he was suspended from his ministry, his home was searched and his bank account frozen. He was without funds, unable even to hire a solicitor. It later emerged that personal and private details of his funding were passed between his bishop and archdeacon, the police and something called the core group, which was looking into so-called safeguarding matters in the case. This in itself is outrageous and a breach of data protection guidelines.

My friend’s suspension lasted long after the police decided there was no further action to be taken against him. No charge was ever brought, and by then they were pursuing the real culprits of the fraud. It was many months before he heard what was happening with his case, and in the meantime he was given little or no pastoral support from the diocese, in contravention of its own guidelines. I have given the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol a full account of this incident, as she expressed a willingness to understand what happened.

The President of Tribunals, who was dealing with a complaint from the archdeacon involving the case, dismissed it entirely in November 2020, noting that there had been serious failures of process and citing particularly the archdeacon but also the “inordinate time” that the diocese safeguarding report took to produce. This seriously damaged the quality and credibility of that report, which I understand contains a large number of significant factual errors.

I have some questions for the right reverend Prelate and would be happy for him to write to me if he feels that is more appropriate. Will this safeguarding report be removed from my friend’s blue file immediately? If it is not, this injustice continues and could affect the rest of his future ministry; he is still quite a young man. What are the core group’s terms of reference? To whom does it report? To whom is it accountable?

The CDM was never enacted in my friend’s case, yet the threat of it has hung over him since March 2020 and has only recently been lifted. It is seriously wanting and needs urgent replacement.

The second case concerns another priest—from the same diocese, as it happens—who has been and continues to be harassed and stalked by someone of whom the Church is well aware, yet it gives no support to the priest. It appears that the diocese has absolutely no policy that protects its clergy from this kind of stalking and obsessive behaviour. The perpetrator posts highly damaging allegations about this priest on the internet, which remain there as the diocese has declined to help. This priest—like any other I know—simply does not have the funds to bring an injunction against the person stalking him, so it goes on.

There must be many other shocking examples of how the Church fails to safeguard its clergy from these people, yet it has spent a lot of money getting in place a safeguarding policy against its clergy. I believe it needs to look again at how it supports its own and, at least in these two cases, quickly remedy its mistakes.

19:48

[Lord Cormack (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I begin with an apology. I have been speaking from within the Chamber for many weeks now, but because King’s Cross station is closed tomorrow and I had to get back to Lincoln, I am here. I thought I would be zooming in on your Lordships. In fact, I am speaking on a telephone because my computer has gone down, so a double apology.

I am tempted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, but will not do so, although the temptation is all the greater because we have recently had our Bishop in Lincoln suspended for 20 months. He is now back, but as an example of natural justice it does not bear close examination.

I want to talk about the Cathedrals Measure. I had a wonderful compensation for not being with your Lordships tonight, because when I went across, as I thought, for evening prayer in our glorious cathedral in Lincoln, we were actually having the first service at evensong in our marvellous St Hugh’s Choir since early March last year and the first lockdown. It was a wonderful spiritual upliftment.

I will of course support this Measure. It has had unanimous support in General Synod, a body on which I served for some 10 years. But I will raise one or two points and would be grateful if the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham would either reply this evening or write to me.

While I accept the logic of cathedrals coming within the jurisdiction of the Charity Commission, it has not had an easy time of late and I want to be completely satisfied that it will be able to cope with this extra workload. It is a matter that I raised on the Ecclesiastical Committee in February, but I remain a bit concerned.

I am also a little concerned about the abolition, after only 20 years, of cathedral councils. I know they had a variable record, but some cathedrals relied on them very much. I would like the reassurance of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham that cathedrals will be able to have councils or their equivalent if they so choose. I accept, with regret, that they will not be statutory, but hope that, where a functioning council is working well, it will be able to continue, perhaps under another name, if that is the wish of the dean and chapter.

I am also a little concerned about the senior non-executive who will chair the wider chapter in the absence of the dean. I hope that careful rules will be put in place to govern the selection of that extremely important person, who could give great help to the cathedral, but could also be divisive. I say that because we in Lincoln were one of the two reasons—Hereford being the other—for the Cathedrals Measure of 1999, following the investigation of the Howe commission. Lincoln had a bad period during the 1990s and I would not like to see the seeds of discord sown in this Measure. I hope that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham can make some reassuring comments.

As for delay, it is important that the new Measure comes into force speedily and expeditiously. Many of us will look to it to show that the Church of England can act in a seemly and speedy way, when necessary. The track record at the moment—I referred to the suspension of our bishop here in Lincoln—is not good, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, underlined the great deal of concern that there is in the country as a whole over the way in which the Church of England conducts itself.

I rest my case there. I wish the Measure every success and hope that it leads to better governance of our cathedrals. They are the glories of our land, the most important group of historic buildings in the country. They are priceless and must be maintained for future generations. I again apologise for having to address your Lordships’ House over a telephone line.

19:54

[The Lord Bishop of Oxford]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak in this debate, to be here in person and to give my general support to the Cathedrals Measure, in the hope that it will be commended by your Lordships’ House as a significant step forward in improving the governance of our cathedrals.

I will take a few moments of the House’s time to respond to some of the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, about the dual foundation of Christ Church in Oxford. In doing so, I declare an interest as the Bishop of the Diocese of Oxford, although I am not a member of the college or its governing body.

As has been said, Christ Church is unique as a cathedral and as a royal foundation, with many similarities in its governance and history to the royal foundations of Westminster Abbey and St George’s, Windsor. The monarch, rather than the bishop of the diocese, is the Visitor. For these reasons, it is right that it is exempt from this Cathedrals Measure. It is a matter of deep regret that the situation of Christ Church has remained unresolved for so long. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, for his restraint in commenting on the details of the situation and I cannot, of course, comment myself, save only to say that the hurt and distress caused to individuals is very significant.

While the situation has continued for almost three years, which is regrettable, there have been a number of different issues such that this is not a single dispute. Throughout that period, there has been good liaison between the Church of England, Christ Church, the University of Oxford and the Charity Commission. Each party has been active in different ways in seeking to bring a resolution. I believe that the description by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, of the governance arrangements is accurate except that the governing body now has some role in approving the appointment of the dean, but I will write to him on that subject to confirm. All of these parties and the governing body are agreed—and have been agreed for some time—that there must, indeed, be a comprehensive review of governance once a resolution has been reached. The proposals put by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, though interesting and relevant to that debate and process, although it is likely, of course, that the different parties will argue for quite distinct reforms.

On 25 June last year, the Charity Commission issued a notice requiring the parties to the dispute in Christ Church to enter into a mediation process. We await the outcome of that process. The commission also requested that all parties refrain from public or private commentary while the mediation process takes place.

I am able to confirm that the excellent work of both college and cathedral has continued through this difficult period and through the demands of this Covid pandemic. In the cathedral, that is evidenced in the development of streamed worship services, much appreciated and widely taken up across the country and the world as well as the diocese, and in a new development with a school in east Oxford. I pay tribute to all within the foundation for working so very hard to focus on the mission of the charity: the advancement of religion, education and learning through the cathedral and the college.

Christ Church is a unique institution, with a long and distinguished history in one of the great cultural crossroads of the world. I would be very glad to continue conversations with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and with other Members of your Lordships’ House during this difficult period in its life. I support the Measure before us.

19:58

[Lord Wilson of Dinton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I will contribute briefly to this debate in a positive spirit, very much in support of the Measure. First, I declare my own interest: I am chair of the council of Ely Cathedral, one of the bodies which, under Clause 2(3) of the Measure, is to cease to exist. This cancellation sounds rather dramatic, but I do not object to it in the least; I think it is the right thing to do.

When I was honoured by the invitation from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ely to be a chair of the council five years ago, I must confess that I was not absolutely sure what the council did. Five years later, I am still not absolutely sure what the council is formally there for. Honestly, that is no reflection on the Bishop or the dean: they are both great men who do lovely jobs. It is not a reflection on my fellow members, who are very involved and active and are a source of support, loyalty and activity for the cathedral, which is excellent, and I pay tribute to them. It is not the fault of the chapter or of anyone in Ely; it is the fault of the 1999 Cathedrals Measure.

Although Baroness Howe wrote a report, I do not believe that the 1999 Measure actually implemented what that report recommended. The concept of the council, as it emerged in 1999, was a bit of a fudge—I should not say that. The result is that you now have bodies that may be useful because of the sort of people that you have on them—they are determined to be useful. However, they are in a position of responsibility without power, which is very uncomfortable and potentially dangerous, if something is going wrong and they can see that but cannot do anything about it—that is not satisfactory.

As such, I note the consultations leading up to this, which began in 2017—I was involved in them. I was a bit pessimistic about this exercise: I thought that there were too many divided views, too many strong differing opinions and too many cathedrals that were too different from one another. They were like colleges: particular creatures of their own kind.

I am delighted and impressed by this Measure; it is a remarkable achievement, which has been achieved by a lot of people. It has very clear structures for cathedrals, separating governance and management in a very clear-minded way—it will be a big improvement. It makes a good step forward in relation to the role of the Charity Commission, which has a lot of work to do—but it has already done a lot of work and found the resources to do it. That is my impression; I am not close to it. Having it alongside the Church Commissioners is a very positive step. Ensuring the central importance of safeguarding is important. This is a very sound basis for our great, glorious cathedrals to go ahead. A lot of hard work has gone into it, and we ought to pause for one moment to say “Well done” to the legal draftsmen, the steering committee and the synod, which were coaxed into doing it, as well as so many other people who have contributed to this.

From the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and others, we have heard some really nasty-sounding cases, and I will not comment on them, beyond one thing. Having been master of a college for 10 years and having seen things go wrong in other colleges and other parts of life, I know that, sometimes, in small communities that are too cut off from the rest of the world, toxins build up, poisons intensify and things go badly wrong. It is very hard to stop this and put them right once they have gone beyond a certain point, and I have great sympathy with the Church authorities in trying to sort these cases out.

The solution is to open the windows, to have outsiders in there and to blow away the toxins before they become too intense and multiply too much. In implementing this wise new Measure, it is important for cathedrals to have the windows open, to involve outsiders and to use their power to set up not formal councils as part of their corporate entity but councils that support them if they want to do that—or to set up whatever advisory or other bodies that they want. Of course, they should do that and bring in outsiders who have a role to play. However, they should not have that as their central muddled governance.

This is a big Measure that will improve the basis of the cathedrals. We should pause for a moment to have a quiet celebration of it.

20:04

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow that contribution. I begin by declaring an interest as a Church of England priest and, more importantly, I was a member of the Cathedrals Working Group whose work led to the Measure before us.

The group was established because the episcopal visitation at Peterborough Cathedral, and that at Exeter before it, raised some important questions about the way cathedrals are governed. We first gathered 25 years after the Howe commission had been established in response to problems at two other cathedrals: Hereford and Lincoln. Our Cathedrals Working Group was altogether a more modest enterprise in terms of scope, time and resources, but we had an important job. In the last 25 years, best practice has changed a lot, and the Measure needs updating. I will not go through the proposals in detail, as they have been scrutinised carefully by synod and, even more dauntingly, the Ecclesiastical Committee.

The Measure enacts two major changes that we recommended. The first was a reorganisation to create specifically a separation of governance and management, as recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton. The idea is that the cathedral governing body remains a chapter chaired by the dean, but now with a majority of non-executive members. We proposed removing cathedral councils from the governance system for clarity, but a way forward has now been found so that councils can continue to operate but without cutting across clear governance lines, which is crucial. I know that councils are greatly valued by their deans and chapters as they bring a wealth of wisdom and expertise, often supplied by Members of this House, such as the noble Lords, Lord Wilson and Lord Cormack. This way the councils can carry on offering crucial advice and support without the constraints and liabilities that are brought with formal trusteeship.

The second big change was the registration of cathedrals with the Charity Commission by bringing them under the Charities Act. It has been observed that cathedrals are the only church bodies which do not report to a secular as well as an ecclesiastical authority, even though they are the institutions, in some ways, most obviously camped on the boundary between Church and state. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, was not alone in asking how well placed and resourced the Charity Commission is for this task, but I think that most concerns have now been alleviated, chiefly due to the sterling work of the Third Church Estates Commissioner. The Church Commissioners are now providing money, expertise and assistance to support cathedrals to make sure that their governance, safeguarding and any oversight arrangements are all up to par even before the Charity Commission registration process begins.

The working group made a series of other recommendations about leadership and management, finance and buildings, audit and risk and, crucially, safeguarding—proposing bringing cathedrals into the whole-Church approach led by the CofE national safeguarding team. I have been hugely impressed at the willingness of the Church to accept and act on our recommendations. Having all your recommendations accepted is a rather novel experience for anyone serving on any working group, never mind a Church one, so those involved in receiving and implementing the report should be very much congratulated.

Inevitably, not everyone liked every recommendation. I know that concerns have been raised by some members of the Ecclesiastical Committee, whose deliberations I have followed with interest. But I think the need for most recommendations has been understood. All cathedrals need appropriate financial, operational and managerial controls, and, of course, there can be no compromise on the need for good, effective, modern safeguarding policies and procedures.

I have a few questions for the record. Can the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham confirm that all the recommendations of the Cathedrals Working Group have been accepted by the Church? Are all the recommendations which require legislative change included in the Measure before the House this evening? Is there a plan to implement the non-legislative recommendations? More specifically, if in the wake of IICSA the Church moves to create an independent body to oversee its safeguarding practices, would that cover cathedrals too?

Since this marks the end of a long process, I would like to record some thanks, if the House will indulge me. Thanks are due to the chair of the Cathedrals Working Group, Bishop Adrian Newman, the vice-chair —now the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol—and the other members; Jacqui Phillips and her team, who provided such an excellent secretariat; Alex McGregor and colleagues in the legal office of the CofE, who kept us on the right side of the law with tact and precision; the Third Church Estates Commissioner, Eve Poole, for marvellous work; the CofE legal adviser, Eva Abeles; and all those who have worked so hard to advance these reforms.

In closing, the working group was full of people like me who love cathedrals. Indeed, our report describes them as

“spectacular and wonderful expressions of the mission of God in His world.”

So many of them are among the pinnacles of our architectural and cultural heritage. They are at the heart of their communities, hosting wonderful worship but also everything from graduations to art installations and now vaccination centres.

Cathedrals, like many city centre churches, are also where people go to take the things that they do not know what to do with: often pain or grief or loss or fear—things we have had so much of in the last year. We shall need our cathedrals more than ever in the years ahead, as we move, we hope, out of a pandemic into a place of recovery and healing. Because they hold such a unique place in the heart of our nation, it is crucial that cathedrals are, and are seen to be, well managed and safely governed. These reforms are born out of a desire to ensure that our cathedrals will be around and thriving well into the future.

If we end up with another cathedrals commission in another 25 years, I trust that at least then it will not be down to failures of governance, safeguarding or oversight. I commend this Measure to the House.

20:10

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I was chairman of the first advisory council of St Paul’s. I thought it worked very well, and I worked very closely with the then dean. I was also the chairman of a visitation to Exeter Cathedral. As I have already said this evening, I am chair of the Ecclesiastical Committee.

Members of the Ecclesiastical Committee had the opportunity, individually, to look at earlier drafts of this Measure. There were some concerns and we —individual members, not the committee itself—have had the most useful discussions with both the Charity Commission, particularly the chairman, whom I thank very much, and the Third Church Estates Commissioner, who spoke to me in particular and has done an absolutely brilliant job, for which I commend her. The draft that passed through synod came to us as the Measure at the Ecclesiastical Committee. A number of members of the committee, including two who have spoken this evening, were potentially going to be very critical, but the Measure, if I may say so personally, is excellent. It was very carefully scrutinised over quite a long time by the Ecclesiastical Committee. We were helped enormously by the advice and evidence of the Church of England, and we had no difficulty whatever, at the end, in deeming unanimously that the Measure was expedient. Consequently, with great pleasure, I commend it to the House.

I would add only one more thing. Speaking entirely personally, and not as chairman of the Ecclesiastical Committee, I remain extremely concerned about clergy discipline legislation. I know that a lot of discussion is going on and a number of reports have been written. I hope the Church of England will get together to look very seriously at updating what is, at the moment, a very inadequate system. From what the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, has said, it requires urgent reform. I commend this Measure to the House.

20:13

[The Lord Bishop of Durham [V]]

My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have taken part in the debate for all their comments. Perhaps I should have begun by explaining that my absence from presenting this in person is for exactly the same reason as that of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack: I would have been stuck in London because there are no trains out of King’s Cross from tomorrow morning until Monday morning. I am very grateful that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford is there.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, feels that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford addressed most of his points. The right reverend Prelate has also undertaken to write. If there is anything further that the noble Lord would like to pursue, I suggest that it is probably most appropriate to do it with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, rather than me as the one presenting this. We clearly all agree that radical reform is essential once the current situation has moved forward.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, for saying that she would be happy for me to write. I think it is the most appropriate way of responding to the detailed comments she made about those specific things. I undertake to write to her. I note and put on the record about safeguarding work around core groups that revision work is being undertaken at present on how the groups are constituted and how they work. That particular point is currently being addressed.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for his comments and his support of the Measure. It was very good to hear that Lincoln Cathedral worship is still being done so well. I would never have doubted that. On his question about the Charity Commission, yes, it will be able to cope. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, noted, work has been done on that. The Charity Commission is very happy that the Church Commissioners have offered some support. There is to be a memorandum of understanding between the Charity Commission and the Church Commissioners to support the co-regulation of cathedrals. It is in the process of being agreed. The heads of terms of this MoU were approved by both the Charity Commission board and the Church Commissioners’ board of governors in September 2020. The detailed MoU is now in the process of being drawn up. In addition, the Charity Commission and the Church Commissioners are expected to approve a registration protocol later this month to set out how they work in tandem to support and facilitate the cathedrals adopting new constitutions and statutes and applying to the Charity Commission for registration over the next three years.

With regard to church councils, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, for his sterling explanation of why he believes the changes are so supportive. I hope that that acted as a good response to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I note that cathedrals will be able to appoint an advisory body. The great advantage of that is that it will avoid the confusion that the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, pointed to around governance and management. It also means that the advisory council can be made up of key stakeholders and have functions conferred on it by the chapter, which could include non-statutory functions currently undertaken by many councils, including being the critical friend and source of advice to the chapter. The details as to the composition, functions and proceedings of any such body, including accounts, would be set out in the cathedral statutes. This means that the role of an advisory council can be tailored to meet local needs and reflect the circumstances of the cathedral that it serves. With regard to the senior non-exec, the bishop does make this appointment but must do so after conversation and consultation with the chapter, so that it is a collaborative approach.

As to speed of implementation, I happen to know that some cathedrals are chafing and are ready to roll as soon as this has Royal Assent. Indeed, the legal advisers told me earlier today that there was more concern that they were running ahead of it having consent, rather than them being slow to implement.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for her part on the Cathedrals Working Group. For the record, I am the noble Baroness’s bishop. She is not just a priest in the Church of England, she is a priest in my own diocese. To answer her questions: were all the recommendations of the Cathedrals Working Group accepted? The Archbishops’ Council commissioned the Cathedrals Working Group and asked the synod to set it up. All the recommendations in the report were accepted by the synod but because the Measure itself was subsequently amended by the synod, the way in which some of the recommendations have been implemented are not quite as they are set out in the report. An example would be that the senior vice-chair became the senior non-executive member but, in essence, yes, they have been.

Are all the recommendations which require legislative change included in the Measure before the House? Not quite—a small number need to be implemented by amending the Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Regulations 2009 and so could not be implemented through this Measure. These recommendations are fairly minor and relate to the terms of service of residentiary canons.

It had been intended to bring amending regulations to the General Synod in July 2020, to tee up the changes to the regulations, with final approval coming later. However, due to the lockdown and its impact on the life of the General Synod, that has been slowed down. The amending regulations will now be brought before General Synod for consideration in July 2021. If approved by the General Synod, those amending regulations are expected to come into force for each cathedral on the date certified for the adoption of its new constitution and statutes under the new Measure. Therefore, the delay to the amending regulations being considered by synod will have no practical implications, as no cathedral will have adopted its new constitution and statutes before this summer anyway.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked about the plan to implement the non-legislative recommendations. They are being and will continue to be implemented through new guidance and template policies and training to support the new governance structures.

On the question about the Church moving to create an independent body to oversee its safeguarding practices in the wake of IICSA and whether this will cover the cathedral sector too—yes, absolutely. It is expected that any independent body which oversees safeguarding across the national Church will provide this function to cathedrals. Indeed, the first steps towards the creation of an independent body are now well under way on an interim basis, ahead of a longer-term, full-scale, independent set-up.

I hope that, except where I have undertaken to write, I have responded to all the questions raised by noble Lords. I thank them all for the enthusiastic support given to the Measure. I undertake that concerns raised around the Clergy Discipline Measure and so on are well heeded. At the July synod, the equivalent of a White Paper will be presented on what future changes might be required. Then, assuming that is taken note of, we will move ahead to necessary reforms to the CDM. I note in passing, as one who has to enact the CDM—and, indeed, has been subject to it—that in most cases it works quite effectively. The difficulty is that on some specific issues, often related to safeguarding, all of us concerned recognise that reform is essential. One of the key things there is the rights and the protections of clergy themselves when they face false accusations and difficulties.

With all that, and with thanks again for the support for this Cathedrals Measure, I commend it to your Lordships’ House.

Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 8.23 pm.