House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues about cross-border connectivity and the Union connectivity review.
Scott Benton
From the castles of north Wales to the pleasure beach in my constituency, popular tourist attractions across north Wales and the north-west of England will host thousands of visitors this summer as people choose to holiday here in the UK rather than abroad. In order to support tourism and economic growth, it is vital that we strengthen transport links between those regions, so does my right hon. Friend agree that delivering on our manifesto pledge to upgrade the notoriously congested A55 must remain an absolute priority?
Simon Hart
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that question, and he is right. I have visited the area quite a bit recently and seen exactly the challenges ahead. It is a manifesto commitment. We visited with the Transport Secretary. That is very much in our sights, and we hope to have some good news about it in the foreseeable future.
Marco Longhi
My Italian forefathers always understood the importance of sunshine, sandy beaches and full-bodied, gorgeous ice cream, but for those who live in Dudley, the nearest beach is in Wales, and access is almost mission impossible. What can my right hon. Friend do to improve the wellbeing of my constituents by improving access to these basic rights?
Simon Hart
Sadly, we cannot move Dudley, but what we can do is progress the Union connectivity review and strengthen the links. I know my hon. Friend’s part of the world very well. Of course, the cross-border holidaying and other activity between the west midlands and Wales is well known, and we want to improve it. That is exactly what the review is about, because we know that brings not only gratification to the residents of Dudley, but economic prosperity to both areas.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Llefarydd. The Wales Governance Centre has calculated that, were Wales to be treated like Scotland in relation to HS2 and rail funding, we would be over half a billion pounds better off. Only 1.26% of the firms in the HS2 supply chain are Welsh and we know that, when HS2 is complete, it will take £200 million out of the south Wales economy alone. In the Secretary of State’s opinion, what percentage of HS2 supply chain firms should be based in Wales—or is he happy for his Government to continue to short-change Wales?
Simon Hart
I am glad that the right hon. Lady has recognised the relevance of HS2 in shortening journey times; indeed, the journey from her own constituency to London will benefit from the improvements that we are recommending—and that were included in the recent Queen’s Speech, for that matter. There will be shorter journey times, but there will also be numerous opportunities for businesses in Wales to be part of the supply chain, not only in the construction period but thereafter. I hope that what she has actually pointed out is how her party, in her area, is going to warmly embrace that major infrastructure scheme, which will benefit Wales, whichever part of it people live in.
Liz Saville Roberts
A percentage would be nice, and an increase would be most welcome, given the effect that it will have.
In another area, Welsh-language TV channel S4C has seen a 36% real-terms cut since 2010, and there are now concerns that it will receive a flat cash settlement in the next licence fee round. S4C requires only a modest £10 million per annum of additional investment and the retention of CPI-linked annual increases in licence fee funding to remain competitive with the already advantaged BBC and, essentially, to reach audiences on new digital platforms. Will the Secretary of State work with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to ensure additional investment for S4C so that the channel is treated with equivalence to the BBC and, equally or more important, it is viable into the future?
Simon Hart
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for raising the cultural and linguistic significance of S4C, not least because it is headquartered in my constituency. I have a very warm relationship with all the individuals who have been making their case very powerfully to Members across the House in the last few months. I can confirm to her that the Wales Office has of course made some very strong submissions to DCMS. The decision has yet to be made, but I urge her and other colleagues to continue to do that. We recognise the importance of this and we want very much to get to a speedy and correct conclusion.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
One of the ways in which the Government could improve transport connectivity is by figuring out what they are doing with their much-lauded levelling-up fund. Given the performance of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers at the BEIS Committee yesterday, which can be described as confused at best—not knowing how the fund will work, how it will be delivered or whether funding will continue into levels 2 and 3—can the Secretary of State confirm that there will be funding available for the second and third funding bids, and that it will be at the same level promised by Ministers just at the beginning of this year? Will he also commit to a further meeting with all Welsh MPs of all parties and MHCLG officials, so that they can clarify the confusing situation for those Members who have more than one county in their constituency and constituents do not lose out on this much-promised money?
Simon Hart
Certainly as far as meetings are concerned, I am more than happy to confirm that we will put those in the diary. Whether they are with the MHCLG or others is a matter for discussion. I am very happy to do that; we have done it on a number of issues. I have found that to be quite a constructive and collaborative experience.
As far as the levelling-up fund is concerned, this is, at the end of the day, a good news story. I recognise that there are lessons to be learned from year one, but the levelling-up fund, in whatever shape or form we like to describe it, is here to stay. I am very keen to hear the lessons from the hon. Member, his local authorities and other stakeholders on how we can make it even better than it already is in years two and three.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
The House only needs to look at the £16 million recently given to Meritor in Cwmbran, or the £30 million given to Celsa at the beginning of the pandemic, to see our commitment to Welsh manufacturing. The Government have provided over £11.35 billion in direct and indirect support for businesses in Wales to tackle the pandemic.
Matt Western [V]
The news in recent days that the Serious Fraud Office has launched an investigation into Liberty Steel will be really concerning for workers in Newport and Tredegar, and for all of us who want to see a rescue deal. However, given that global steel production is actually increasing, the industry can clearly be viable and it is, of course, critical to our supply chain infrastructure for so many industries. May I therefore urge the Government to come forward in the next few days with a clear plan and to confirm that they will do whatever it takes, including the option of public ownership, to secure UK domestic steel capacity and the jobs they support, including in my constituency of Warwick and Leamington?
Simon Hart
I am sure the hon. Member will understand if I do not get drawn into any questions about Liberty, particularly given the case he mentions, but I hope he will be reassured by the fact that my earlier reference to Celsa—we were able to step in at short notice and help a company for exactly the reasons that he rightly points out—is a demonstration of exactly how committed we are to a sustainable steel industry in Wales.
Mr Dhesi
Way back in 2012, in the good old days, the Conservative-led Government promised to build a western rail link to Heathrow that would benefit not only my Slough constituents, but the many Welsh businesses and families who would have a shorter, more direct route to our major national transport hub. So can the Secretary of State tell us when we can finally expect work to begin on that line? Can he also guarantee that Welsh and other UK steel manufacturers will be at the front of the queue when the line is being built?
Simon Hart
I would be a beneficiary of that line, so I am with the hon. Member in terms of our ambition to always try to improve on our infrastructure links. It is good for the economy and particularly good for the supply chain economy, as he rightly points out. Plenty of businesses in Wales could benefit from that. I hope the recent announcement on procurement in the Queen’s Speech will give him and others encouragement that we are taking that extremely seriously.
Mick Whitley [V]
North Wales is part of an integrated cross-border economy that stretches from Wrexham and Flintshire to my constituency on the banks of the Mersey. Covid-19 has devasted key local manufacturers across the area, including the Vauxhall car plant in Ellesmere Port and many companies located in the Deeside enterprise zone. Can the Secretary of State inform the House what steps the Government are taking to expedite the proposed Mersey Dee Alliance fiscal stimulus package, which will help manufacturers across north-east Wales and the Wirral to build back better and greener in the wake of this terrible pandemic?
Simon Hart
I hope I can give the hon. Gentleman some encouragement. We are enthusiastic about the Mersey Dee Alliance and everything it stands for. We are keen to continue to work with it, looking at ways of recognising that the economic area stretches way beyond the geographical borders of Wales and England—we absolutely recognise that point. We are determined to make sure we get further progress and deliver on some of the commitments we made on manufacturing and other industries in Deeside that he referred to.
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) [V]
The Port Talbot and Bridgend area could lend itself fantastically to the establishment of the UK Government’s first freeport in Wales, creating up to 15,000 jobs in the process. Does my right hon. Friend have an update on this initiative in Wales, and can he confirm whether the UK Government will start the freeport process alone if the Welsh Government continue to ignore this fantastic opportunity?
Simon Hart
My hon. Friend is right to point out how enthusiastically the freeport scheme has been welcomed across the whole of Wales, and it is a source of some frustration that we have yet to get it over the line. He is right to ask whether we could do that. Clearly, we would like to do it in collaboration with the Welsh Government, which is where the blockage currently resides, but we can and, if necessary, will proceed to deliver on our manifesto commitment come what may.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Trade agreements with other countries can provide new opportunities to promote our excellent Welsh manufacturers around the world, but we must ensure that these deals do not end up undercutting our industries in the process. The Welsh Automotive Forum has said that current trading arrangements between the UK and Europe are leading to disruption to Welsh companies due to new checks on imports and rules of origin, and I have heard that from local companies in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, too. What has the Secretary of State done personally to address this and will he guarantee that Welsh agricultural producers do not lose out from the proposed deal with Australia?
Simon Hart
We have regular meetings with the automotive sector, and with stakeholders, the supply chain and others, to try to ascertain exactly what the issues are and how they can be speedily resolved, so we are engaged on that level. As for the rumours about the Australia free trade agreement, I should point out that no deal has been done, but if and when it is done, it will include protections for the agricultural industry and it will not undercut UK farmers or compromise our high standards.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
In the last year, the Government have provided £7.4 billion of additional support through the welfare system for people affected by covid-19, including the £20 a week increase in universal credit. I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about financial support for Wales, and I was able to personally congratulate him a few weeks ago on the outstanding Budget that he delivered for Wales and the UK.
Alex Davies-Jones
But more than a year has now passed since ExcludedUK was first mentioned in this place and still nothing has been done to support the millions of people across the UK who have seen their livelihoods decimated by the pandemic and who have not received a penny of support from this UK Government. The Secretary of State and the Minister mentions that they have met the Chancellor, but what representations have they made to him on behalf of Welsh people who have been excluded from support by his Government?
David T. C. Davies
In addition to the £7.4 billion of additional support through the welfare system, the UK Government provided the Welsh Government with an extra £8.6 billion-worth of support, and the Welsh Government were free to use that in any way they wished. They were free to give it out to local authorities and allow them to make grants to anyone who had been badly affected, so we completely acknowledge that people have suffered as a result of the pandemic. That is why there was £8.6 billion of support for the Welsh Government, why Welsh businesses received £2.75 billion of support and why we supported 466,000 Welsh workers through the furlough scheme.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Families across Wales will have appreciated the recent easing of covid restrictions, made possible, of course, by First Minister Mark Drakeford’s cautious, evidence-driven approach, but rising concerns about new variants of coronavirus remind us that the pandemic has not gone away. The vast majority of people want to play their part to keep us all safe, but the UK Government’s failure to increase statutory sick pay is forcing many on low incomes to choose between going to work to support their families or staying at home to keep us safe. What pressure can the Minister bring to bear on the Chancellor to put that right?
David T. C. Davies
I am sure that the hon. Lady would acknowledge that Mr Drakeford has been able to work very closely with the UK Government because he has been present at all the Cobra meetings and Welsh Government Ministers have been present at all the ministerial implementation group meetings, very much as part of a joint approach towards tackling the pandemic. The Chancellor and Prime Minister have always been clear that people will suffer as a result of the pandemic. We have not been able to help everyone, but we have, as I said, provided an extra £8.6 billion for the Welsh Government, £2.75 billion for Welsh businesses and supported 466,000 Welsh workers on furlough—plus the mortgage holidays, the cuts in VAT and the cuts in business rates. In Wales alone, we have already created 5,000 extra jobs through the kickstart scheme.
Nia Griffith
On a different matter, without delving into the chaos of this Government’s foreign travel policy, the reality for many airlines is that this summer will be nowhere near a return to normal. The whole aviation sector faces irreparable harm. We have already seen Welsh jobs lost in the sector and Aerospace Wales has warned that thousands more are on the line. What sector-specific financial support will the Government provide to the aviation industry in Wales to get it through yet another difficult summer and ensure that it has a strong future?
David T. C. Davies
I very much welcome the hon. Lady’s support for the airline industry. Her stated view that we should get people back on to planes and flying around as much as possibly is in stark contrast to the extreme environmental view, which some people in her party seem to take, that nobody should ever get on a plane.
I can assure the hon. Lady that we meet the airline industry regularly; I spoke to the aerospace trade body about 10 days ago and met Airbus online a few days ago. We have not taken up sector-specific support, because the UK Government believe that we should be able to go out there and help all businesses that have been affected by the pandemic. That is why we have already put down £2.7 billion for Welsh businesses, which I hope she will welcome.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
Research by the Centre for Progressive Policy has shown that UK Government covid emergency support was, on average, £1,000 more generous to London residents than to those in Wales, and that the UK Government spent nearly £7 billion more on London than if each nation and region of the UK had been allocated the same emergency spending per resident. What explanation has the Minister been given by his Cabinet colleagues for that discrepancy?
David T. C. Davies
The fact of the matter is that the money has gone to those in need in all parts of the United Kingdom. I have already mentioned the £8.75 billion extra that went to the Welsh Government, the £2.7 billion for Welsh businesses and the 466,000 Welsh workers who were supported through the furlough scheme—to be honest, I really welcome these questions, because they give me an opportunity to spell out the huge support that the Government have delivered for Wales. UK-wide, the UK Government have spent £280 billion supporting people across the whole United Kingdom. With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that an independent Wales would have been able to manage that level of support.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
Last week’s Queen’s Speech announced legislation on procurement that will increase flexibility for contracting authorities and reduce bureaucracy, which will simplify procurement in the public sector and help support British businesses. I very much hope that the Welsh Government will join us in further supporting Welsh companies.
John Spellar
The Minister will be aware that the Department for Transport is spending billions on its programme to decarbonise transport, but it does not seem so interested in building our green manufacturing capacity. Does he share my concern at recent reports of Welsh councils buying green buses not from British firms, but from China? Will he hold urgent discussions with councils, Government and the Transport Secretary in London to demand that taxpayer-funded green subsidies support British industry and British jobs?
David T. C. Davies
I am absolutely delighted that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that this Government are spending billions of pounds on supporting green industries; he is absolutely right. I do not know which specific councils he means, but I know that Newport City Council, a Labour council, recently bought some electric buses; I have no idea where from, but if he has a problem with how the council is conducting procurement, perhaps he would like to discuss it with some of his Labour colleagues. He will certainly know that we have to abide by the World Trade Organisation treaty agreement. I do not suppose that he is advising me to break our international treaty obligations, but if he is, I look forward to hearing more about it.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
The results of the recent elections clearly show that a majority of voters in Wales—and in Scotland, actually—voted for pro-Unionist parties. It is clear that voters in Wales want the freedom to study, work, live and travel freely between England and Wales without a border.
Sir Edward Leigh
Does my hon. Friend agree that, following the elections, and apart from evident self-interest, the Union is ever stronger because of abundant common interest?
David T. C. Davies
My right hon. Friend has been in this House for many years and has a great deal of wisdom. He makes an important point. We are united by a shared love of the Union, our United Kingdom and the firm belief that we are stronger together than apart—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. If somebody wants to do a little tapping, there is room outside for that.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
This fiscal settlement delivers for Wales. This year, the Welsh Government will receive almost £19 billion of block grant funding, which is £1 billion more than was agreed with the Welsh Labour Government as being a fair settlement for Wales.
Deidre Brock [V]
The fiscal settlement will not matter all that much if the possible trade deal with Australia goes through with a zero-tariff regime, which would cause serious difficulties for Welsh and, indeed, Scottish farmers. What compensation for those farmers is being built into the fiscal settlement, should this latest gung-ho trade deal scupper their livelihoods?
David T. C. Davies
No trade deal has been signed yet, but yesterday I was on a call with National Farmers Union representatives, who said that they welcomed the principle of a trade deal. They have a few concerns about some of the details, and we will continue our discussions with the NFU and with farmers. But I am surprised at the hon. Lady, who I think was in favour of having a free trade deal with the European Union. Why would she not want to have a free trade deal with a country with which we all—and she and I personally—have very close links indeed?
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
The Senedd election has shown that three out of four voters rejected separatism, recognising that our economic prosperity is indelibly linked to being part of the Union.
John Howell
I am concerned that one of the first priorities of the Welsh Government seems to be a universal basic income. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the debates that I took part in at the Council of Europe, in which the idea was completely rubbished?
Simon Hart
I say to my hon. Friend:
“Anybody who thinks this is a good idea should knock some doors of Labour voters in working families. It might sound radical to academics and ‘policy wonks’ but it sounds out of touch if you ask most normal people.”
Those are not my words, but the words of the new Minister for the Economy in the Welsh Government, so it seems that they have a problem in their own ranks, let alone trying to persuade us of the merits of it.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Does the Secretary of State accept that it is Mark Drakeford’s superb stewardship of the Welsh economy and the Welsh NHS that has secured Mark’s overwhelming re-election? Will he welcome the Welsh Labour Government’s new 10-year infrastructure investment plan for a zero-carbon economy and release the promised UK Government funding for the global centre of rail excellence to be built in my Neath constituency?
Simon Hart
There were many questions included in that, but I am delighted to have played a part in getting the global centre of rail excellence situated in the hon. Lady’s constituency. That was a Government announcement by the Chancellor in the Budget, and it shows that collaboration can work when we try to achieve these aims. As far as covid reaction is concerned, that has been a team effort and a cross-UK effort. The vaccination programme is probably the clearest indication of why the Union matters and how we have been able to work collaboratively with our colleagues in the Welsh Government to deliver something that genuinely benefits the entire nation.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke with the First Minister shortly after the election result. I have extended an invitation to meet the new Minister for the Economy. We have had calls with the First Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster last week, and another one is due this evening.
Stephen Crabb
The recent elections demonstrated that the vast majority of voters in Wales have no time for independence. They have little time for ripping up the devolution settlement either. What the elections showed is that they want their politicians and Ministers at either end of the M4 to work together to make good things happen for Wales, and to make Wales a stronger and more prosperous part of the UK. Given that the success of the vaccination programme shows that this can be done, what needs to happen now to unblock other important policies such as freeports, which are stuck between the UK and Welsh Governments?
Simon Hart
My right hon. Friend is spot on; we have had considerable, really enthusiastic interest in the freeport programme from across the whole of Wales—it will bring 15,000 jobs and it is a manifesto commitment—and the only obstacle standing between us and delivering it is currently the Welsh Government. I am determined to work collaboratively, as we have said before, to get this over the line, and any pressure that anybody in this House can bring to bear to help us achieve that will be very welcome.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
Last week, an inquest found Francis Quinn, Father Hugh Mullan, Noel Phillips, Joan Connolly, Daniel Teggart, Joseph Murphy, Edward Doherty, John Laverty, Joseph Corr and John McKerr, who were killed in Ballymurphy in August 1971, entirely innocent. On behalf of successive Governments, and to put this on the record in this House, I would like to say sorry to their families for how the investigations were handled and for the pain they have endured since their campaign began almost five decades ago. No apology can lessen their lasting pain. I hope they may take some comfort in the answers they have secured and in knowing that this has renewed the Government’s determination to ensure in future that other families can find answers with less distress and delay.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Gareth Thomas
I strongly associate myself with the earlier part of the Prime Minister’ comments. May I raise something slightly different though? It is nearly four years since the Grenfell Tower tragedy claimed some 72 lives, yet hundreds of thousands of families still live in unsafe, unsellable homes, and many leaseholders face crippling debts, through no fault of their own—Trident Point, Pearmain House and Amber Court are all in my constituency. Given that this was the biggest building scandal in modern UK history, why did the Prime Minister order his MPs to vote down our efforts yesterday to get this scandal sorted once and for all?
The Prime Minister
I in no way underestimate the suffering of the victims of Grenfell or of those whose buildings—whose homes—have been prejudiced by the spectre of unsafe materials. That is why we have provided an unprecedented £5 billion of investment, and I can also tell the hon. Gentleman that the most dangerous cladding is already gone or is going from all high-rise buildings. We certainly agree that leaseholders should be protected from remediation costs, and people in high-rise buildings will pay nothing to replace their unsafe cladding.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I can understand the feelings of frustration that the people of Havering may have about a current Mayor of London who does not understand the needs of outer London and is not investing in outer London in the way that a previous Mayor did—I seem to recall that they set up the outer London fund and drove through many other benefits for the outer boroughs. However, I must tell my hon. Friend in all candour that what we need to do is work together to ensure that that glad day returns when we have a Mayor who truly represents all Londoners.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s comments on the Ballymurphy inquest and the sentiment behind them.
Does the Prime Minister agree that the single biggest threat to hitting the 21 June date for unlocking is the risk of new variants coming into the UK?
The Prime Minister
I certainly think that that is one of the issues that we must face, but perhaps it would be of benefit to the House if I update it on where we are, because we have looked at the data again this morning. I can tell the House that we have increasing confidence that vaccines are effective against all variants, including the Indian variant. In this context, I want particularly to thank the people of Bolton, Blackburn and many other places who have been coming forward in record numbers to get vaccinated—to get their first and second jabs. I think that the numbers have doubled in Bolton alone, and the people of this country can be proud of their participation.
Keir Starmer
I think that is a yes: that the risk of other variants coming through our borders is one of the biggest threats to unlocking. We are not just talking about the Indian variant; we are talking about future variants. In those circumstances, why on Monday did the Prime Minister choose to weaken travel restrictions by moving 170 countries or territories to the amber list?
The Prime Minister
We have one of the strongest border regimes anywhere in the world. There are currently 43 countries on the red list. Everybody should know that if they travel to an amber list country for any emergency or any extreme reason that they have for doing so, when they come back they have not only to pay for all the tests, but to self-isolate for 10 days. We will invigilate that; we are invigilating that. People who fail to obey the quarantine can face fines of up to £10,000.
Keir Starmer
I think everybody would agree that, having moved 170 countries to the amber list, absolute clarity is needed about the circumstances in which people can travel to an amber country. Yesterday morning, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that people could fly to amber list countries if they wanted to visit family or friends. By the afternoon, a Health Minister said that nobody should travel outside Britain this year, and that, “Travelling is dangerous.” The Prime Minister said that travel to amber countries should be only where it is essential. By the evening, the Welsh Secretary suggested that
“some people might think a holiday is essential”.
The Government have lost control of the messaging. Can the Prime Minister answer a really simple question that goes to the heart of this? If he does not want people to travel to amber list countries, if that is his position, why has he made it easier for them to do so?
The Prime Minister
I think that, after more than a year of this, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will understand that what the public would like to see is some effort to back up what the Government are saying to deliver clarity of message. On his point about legal bans, as he knows, we are trying to move away from endlessly legislating on everything and to rely on guidance and asking people to do the right thing. It is very, very clear, Mr Speaker: you should not be going to an amber list country except for some extreme circumstance, such as the serious illness of a family member. You should not be going to an amber list country on holiday. I can imagine that the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to take a holiday, but he should not be going to an amber list country on holiday. If people do go to an amber list country then, as I say, we will enforce the 10-day quarantine period. If they break the rules, they face very substantial fines.
Keir Starmer
That completely swerves the question. The point was that, if it is only in “extreme circumstances” —the Prime Minister’s words—why make it easier to go? Let us test it by looking at the consequences. Since the Government loosened travel restrictions, 150 flights a day are going to amber list countries and travel agents are reporting surges in holiday bookings to those countries. Prime Minister, this is not just a coincidence; it is because of the messaging. Can he tell the House how many people are now travelling to and from Britain from amber list countries every day?
The Prime Minister
I can tell the House that there has been a 95% reduction in travel of any kind to and from this country, and that is exactly what we would expect in the circumstances of this pandemic. There are 43 countries on the red list, and if people come back from one of those countries, they have to go immediately into hotel quarantine. The reason we are able to move forward in the way that we have been is because, as I have told the House repeatedly, we are continuing with the fastest vaccination roll-out, I think, just about anywhere in Europe. As of today, 70% of adults in this country have been vaccinated. That is a fantastic achievement, which is enabling us to make the progress that we are.
Keir Starmer
I think that’s an “I don’t know”. The suggestion that in the last few days there has been a 95% drop-off in travel to amber list countries does not hold water. I am trying to understand the logic of the Government’s position. We know that new variants are the single biggest risk to unlocking. We know that the Government do not think that people should travel to amber list countries, save for in extreme circumstances, but the Government have made it easier to do so. The messaging is confused and contradictory. As a result, this week many people are now travelling to amber list countries, but the Government cannot say how many or when. We are an island nation; we have the power to stop this. Why does the Prime Minister not drop this hopeless system, get control of our borders and introduce a proper system that can protect against the threat of future variants of the virus?
The Prime Minister
Actually, I think what would be helpful—I have set out the position on amber list countries very clearly at least twice; wouldn’t it be great to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman backing it up for a change and using what authority he possesses to convey the message to the rest of the country? The Labour position on borders is hopelessly confused. Last night, I think, the shadow Home Secretary said that Labour wanted to cut this country off from the rest of the world—to pause all travel, even though 75% of our medicines and 50% of our food actually come from abroad. It was only recently that the Leader of the Opposition was saying that quarantine was a “blunt instrument” and he would rather see alternatives.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister is just wrong again; we have called for a blanket hotel quarantine for months. I have raised it here at Prime Minister’s questions three times. The Government ignored it every time and look where we are now, talking about the Indian variant.
The Prime Minister’s former adviser had this one right. He said that the Government’s border policy was a “joke”. Our borders have been wide open pretty well throughout the pandemic. [Interruption.] For those who say that is not true, there was no hotel quarantine system in place until February this year. Flights are still coming in from India, and even as the variant is spreading the Prime Minister decides that now is the time to weaken the system even more. It is ridiculous.
Finally, I want to raise the appalling rise in antisemitism in the last week, and the attacks and violence that we have seen. On Saturday, a rabbi in Chigwell was hospitalised after being attacked outside his synagogue. Many of us will have seen the appalling incident in Golders Green. The Community Security Trust reports a 500% rise in antisemitic incidents since the outbreak of violence in Gaza and Israel. I know that the Government are working on this, and both the Prime Minister and I have condemned these antisemitic attacks and violence, but across this House we all know that Jewish communities remain very anxious. What more does the Prime Minister think can be done to provide the extra support and protection needed to reassure Jewish communities at this really very difficult time?
The Prime Minister
I share the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s horror at the outbreak of antisemitic incidents. The Government have conveyed that message loud and clear to those who are responsible for enforcing the law against hate crime of that kind. Obviously, we will continue to work and support the Jewish community in any way that we can, particularly by working with the Community Safety Trust, which does an absolutely outstanding job, but also by showing, as a country and as a society, that we will call this out at every stage. We will not let it take root; we will not allow it to grow and fester. In welcoming his remarks, I may say that I believe it is one of the most important changes of attitude —or U-turns, I should say—that I have seen from the Labour party in recent times. I am delighted that he is taking that attitude now. But what this country wants to see is a Government who get on with delivering on the people’s priorities, making everybody safe. It might have been a good thing if he had voted—and got his party to vote—for tougher sentences against serious and violent sexual offenders, to say nothing of people who commit hate crime.
Mr Speaker
I think in fairness this House is very united and will remain united, and of course we do support the CST.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes, and I thank my hon. Friend, who is a great advocate for the people of Cheadle. As part of our plan to move from jabs, jabs, jabs to jobs, jobs, jobs, I am delighted to say that over £1 billion-worth of Government-funded science and innovation projects are currently taking place across the north-west, thanks largely, or at least in part, to her advocacy.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) [V]
May I thank the Prime Minister for his comments on the Ballymurphy inquest?
As a member of Scotland’s crofter community, I understand just how disastrous a Brexit trade deal with Australia, as proposed by this Tory Government, would be for Scotland’s farming and crofting sectors. If reports of this Tory deal were true, farmers will lose their livelihoods, rural businesses will collapse, and ultimately families will be driven off the land. Let us be very clear: if that happens, this UK Tory Government will be solely responsible. Just for once, will the Prime Minister give a straight answer to the farming and crofting families who are living with this threat? Can he categorically rule out his Government being prepared to sign up to a trade deal that will at any future point guarantee tariff-free access to Australian lamb and beef—yes or no?
The Prime Minister
I am delighted to see the shots of the right hon. Gentleman’s croft, by the way—the humble representative of the crofting community. I do not think that he does justice to crofters and to farmers across the country, and in Scotland as well, because he grossly underestimates their ability to do great things with our free trade deals and to export Scottish beef around the world. Why does he not believe in what the people of Scotland can do? Why is he so frightened of free trade? I think it is a massive opportunity for Scotland and for the whole of the UK, and he should seize it and be proud of it.
Ian Blackford
That was quite chilling. To try to treat something as serious as this in the way that the Government and the Prime Minister have done is really quite pathetic. The fact that the Prime Minister could not give a straight answer will send a real chill across Scotland’s farming communities. The UK Government led the betrayal of Scottish fishing and now the Tories are planning to throw our farmers and crofters under the Brexit bus. This morning Martin Kennedy, president of National Farmers Union Scotland, told ITV that farmers will feel “seriously betrayed” by these proposals. This deal would be the final nail in the coffin for many Scottish crofters and farmers. It will end a way of life that has endured for generations—generations, Prime Minister. I know that many of the Prime Minister’s Tory colleagues privately agree with me and want him to pull back from this deal. Will the Prime Minister finally listen, think again, and ditch a deal that will send our farmers down under?
The Prime Minister
First, the right hon. Gentleman is totally wrong in what he says about the fisheries. In fact, there are massive opportunities for fisheries in the whole of the UK as we take back control of our territorial waters. That will be the same for Scotland and around the UK. Again he is grossly underestimating the ability of the people of this country, the agricultural communities of this country and the farming industry to make the most of free trade. This is a country that became successful and grew prosperous on free trade and exporting around the world. Our food exports are second to none. He should be proud of that and he should be celebrating that. All he does is call for us to pull up the drawbridge and go back into the EU to be run by Brussels. That is his manifesto, and I think the people of this country have decisively rejected it.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend very much, and she is totally right. It is part of our levelling up. We are absolutely determined to do that as fast as we possibly can, and I thank her for her message about it this morning. We are not just sending back offices; some of the most important Departments of State will be run from around our great cities and towns in the whole of the UK. I believe that will have a dramatic effect on levelling up across the UK, and I thank her for her question.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Local planning reforms introduced by Liberal Democrat Ministers have seen communities across England vote for new developments, including new housing, new affordable housing and new community facilities, while also protecting the environment and the countryside. Why therefore is the Prime Minister so determined to push through his planning reforms, which will do nothing to solve the country’s real housing crisis and will allow developers to ride roughshod over local communities? The reforms will mean, in the words of his immediate predecessor as Prime Minister,
“the wrong homes being built in the wrong places.”—[Official Report, 11 May 2021; Vol. 695, c. 39.]
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is completely wrong, and he should look at the Bill when it comes forward, because we want to protect the green belt. We want to protect our wonderful open spaces. This is a Government who understand the value of the countryside and rural Britain, but we also think that young people have been deprived for too long of the ability to get on to the housing ladder. That is not just in the south-east, but across the country, and that is why we are bringing forward sensible reforms to allow brownfield sites to go ahead.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I think that such a gesture would be the cherry on the cake of the free trade deal that we have already done.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
The Prime Minister
I will back Britain’s farmers and Welsh farmers in exporting their fantastic lamb around the world. Is it not a disgrace that not a single morsel of Welsh lamb has passed the lips of the Americans in the past 20 years or more? What about China? Has the hon. Gentleman no ambition for the people of this country, the people of Wales or Welsh farmers? I do, and this Government do, and that is why we are getting on with our agenda.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
The Prime Minister
It says here that I must not express a preference on the location of freeports, and I will not, but my hon. Friend makes an outstanding case, as ever. Together with our Welsh Conservative colleagues, she is helping to apply the Vicks inhaler to the bunged-up nostrils of the Welsh dragon.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
I totally reject what the hon. Gentleman just said. I notice that, actually, the Scottish National party did less well than it did under Alex Salmond in 2011—I hesitate to point that out to the hon. Gentleman, but that is the reality. I think the reason for that is that, notwithstanding the nationalist approach that he takes, the people of Scotland have been very disappointed by the record of the Scottish Government in fighting crime, improving education and making Scotland a great place to live and to invest. That is the failing for which his Government are being held to account.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
The Prime Minister
The House will have understood from my opening apology how difficult, how complex and how fraught these issues are, but we are committed to introducing legislation in this Session to address the legacy of the troubles in Northern Ireland, to introducing a fair package for veterans and to protecting them, as I have said many times before, from unfair, vexatious litigation when no new evidence has been brought forward.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We are putting £2 billion into the kickstart programme for 18 to 24-year-olds and investing massively in the restart programme for those who have been longer out of work. I can also tell the hon. Gentleman that the businesses I talk to are currently facing shortages of workers in many sectors, and we will work flat out to ensure that we get those who want jobs to those who need workers.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is spot on in what he says about the need for an offshore grid. As well as building the fantastic windmills, it is vital that we bring the energy onshore in a way that has minimal disruption for local communities and enables us to maximise efficiency.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I think the whole House acknowledges our collective debt to the nurses of the NHS, and I certainly acknowledge my own huge personal debt. That is why, of all the professions in this country in very tough times, we have asked the public sector pay review board to look at an increase in pay for nurses, but in the meantime we have increased starting salary for nurses by 12.8%, and we have put in the bursary worth £5,000—we have restored that—as well as £3,000 for extra help.
But above all, to all nurses—and I know what a tough year they have had, I know how hard it has been on the frontline coping with this pandemic—we have done what I think is the most important thing of all, and that is to recruit many more nurses. There are now about 11,000 more nurses in the NHS today than there were this time last year, and there are 60,000 more in training, and we are on target to reach our target of 50,000 more nurses in the NHS.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for his point, and he knows a great deal about the subject. We have worked very hard with the Welsh Government throughout the pandemic, supporting them with £8.6 billion of additional funding through the Barnett formula, but clearly we need to learn the lessons together as we bounce forward from this pandemic.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Yes is the answer, but the Labour party junked it in—[Interruption.] This is something that, for decades, politicians have failed to address: in 1999, Labour failed to address the plan. They had 13 years—13 years—in government. I think it was 13—13 unlucky years for this country—and they did not do it. They did not do it, and this Government are going to tackle it. This Government are finally going to address the issue of social care. If they want to support it with their customary doughty resolve, if they want to support it without wibble-wobbling from one week to the next on whatever their policy is—without changing like weather vanes, which is what they normally do—if they want to support it and if they want to back it, then I am all ears.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes. That is why we are investing, for instance, £3.6 million from the getting building fund for the development of Pioneer Place, and Burnley will also benefit from our high streets taskforce, but what Burnley and towns across the country need more than anything else is passionate leadership, such as my hon. Friend shows, in championing their localities and getting the right investment in.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Prime Minister will be aware of Pladis’s proposal to close the McVitie’s factory in Glasgow’s east end, placing at risk 470 jobs. So will he join me in engaging with Pladis’s global CEO, Salman Amin, and call upon him to rethink his plans, which would definitely unleash economic armageddon on a very fragile part of the local economy?
The Prime Minister
McVitie’s has been a proud part of the Scottish economy since 1800, and I know that people at the Tollcross factory and their relatives will be very concerned about what is happening. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising it. I know that conversations are now going on to see what we can do. I think it is the Turkish company that now owns McVitie’s, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is meeting the hon. Gentleman to discuss the situation.
Mr Speaker
I am now suspending the House for three minutes to allow the necessary arrangements for the next business.
Petition
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I am grateful for the opportunity to present this petition on behalf of residents of Glasgow East. I have had many constituents get in contact with me regarding the Sheikh Jarrah evictions and the recent violence across Jerusalem. I therefore rise to present this petition on behalf of my east end constituents who wish to see the illegal occupation investigated and a peaceful resolution to the ongoing violence.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the residents of Sheikh Jarrah in occupied East Jerusalem are facing dispossession and forced evictions from their homes; further that Israel’s illegal occupation of East Jerusalem has facilitated discriminatory laws against Palestinians who now have little recourse to the law and face the constant threat of dispossession and displacement; further that the SNP strongly condemns all breaches of international law and violence and supports the European Union position of a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders; further that the International Criminal Court must be able to do its duty and urgently conduct a full investigation; further that the Israeli Government must reconsider its position of non-cooperation with the ICC’s impartial probe; and further that this illegal occupation cannot continue with no investigation and repercussions.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to support the International Criminal Courts’ investigation into the illegal occupation of East Jerusalem and to take the necessary steps to reach a peaceful resolution to the current violence.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002665]
Israel and Gaza: Ceasefire
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the UK Government’s efforts to secure a ceasefire in Israel and Gaza.
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
Since I was last at the Dispatch Box on 13 May, we have sadly seen further violence and more civilian deaths. I am sure the House will join me in offering condolences to all the families of those civilians who have been killed or injured across Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Mr Speaker, with your permission I will set out to the House the work that the Government are doing, along with others, to bring about a peaceful resolution. We are urging the parties to work with mediators towards an immediate ceasefire to prevent further loss of life and a worsening humanitarian situation. We are supporting United Nations, Egyptian and Qatari efforts to that end, and we work closely with the United States.
We are also prioritising our own diplomatic efforts through both bilateral and multilateral channels. The Foreign Secretary and I, with the support of our diplomats on the ground, have been working to progress the conditions needed for an immediate ceasefire. The Foreign Secretary has spoken in recent days with the Israeli Foreign Minister and the Palestinian Prime Minister; he reinforced our clear message of de-escalation and our desire to work together to end the violence. I delivered similar messages to the Israeli ambassador and the Palestinian head of mission in London.
We have also engaged regional partners at ministerial level. The Foreign Secretary spoke with the Foreign Minister of Jordan on 17 May and just this morning I spoke with a number of ambassadors from Arab states to reiterate the need for an immediate ceasefire, and I underlined our shared goal of a peaceful two-state solution. We are playing a leadership role in the United Nations Security Council, where we are calling for measures by all sides to reduce further violence. We will participate in the emergency UN General Assembly session later this week.
The UK unequivocally condemns the firing of rockets at Jerusalem and other locations within Israel. We strongly condemn these acts of terrorism by Hamas and other terrorist groups, who must permanently end their incitement and rocket fire against Israel. There is no justification for the targeting of civilians.
Israel has a legitimate right to self-defence and to defend its citizens from attack. In doing so, it is vital that all actions are proportionate, in line with international humanitarian law and make every effort to avoid civilian casualties. We are aware of medical institutions, a number of schools and many homes in Gaza that have been destroyed or seriously damaged, and we are concerned that buildings housing media and humanitarian organisations such as Qatar Red Crescent have been destroyed. We call on Israel to adhere to the principles of necessity and proportionality when defending its legitimate security interests.
We are also concerned by reports that Hamas is once again using civilian infrastructure and populations as a cover for its military operations. Humanitarian access is essential, and we urge all parties to allow the unimpeded entry of vital humanitarian supplies. Hamas and other terrorist groups must cease their mortar attacks on these crossings. We urge all parties to work together to reduce tensions in the west bank, including East Jerusalem. The UK is clear that the historic status quo in Jerusalem must be respected. Violence against peaceful worshippers of any faith is unacceptable.
The UK position on evictions, demolitions and settlements is clear and long-standing: we oppose these activities. We urge the Government of Israel to cease their policies related to settlement expansion immediately and instead work towards a two-state solution. The UK will continue our intensive diplomatic efforts in the region focused on securing a ceasefire and creating the conditions for a sustainable peace.
Mr Speaker
I remind people that there are set times that we have to try to stick to.
Wayne David
It is of enormous concern to everyone in the House that in this conflict between Hamas and Israel nearly 300 people have been killed, including 65 children. This is truly appalling. We condemn the rocket attacks by Hamas and the Israeli airstrikes, which have killed so many innocent people and severely damaged schools and medical facilities.
I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say regarding the Government’s position and his statement in favour of an immediate ceasefire. We have heard in the last few hours that the French and Jordanian Governments are making real efforts to bring about a UN resolution that would help to secure an immediate ceasefire. We have heard that there have been discussions with the Egyptians and the Germans. The name of the United Kingdom Government has not been mentioned.
I ask the Minister whether he would care to elaborate on what representations he has recently made to secure the objective of an immediate ceasefire. Could I also press him on what efforts his Government are making to provide humanitarian support for the people of Gaza? I urge the Government to do everything they can to restart a meaningful peace process as a matter of urgency. If further conflagrations are to be prevented, we need a process that will uphold international law, end the illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories and create a viable Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel.
James Cleverly
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his recognition of the diplomatic work that the UK Government have put in. I can assure him that we remain fully committed to an immediate ceasefire, and we are working to that end. As I have said, the Foreign Secretary spoke with his Jordanian opposite number only a few days ago, and I spoke to ambassadors from the region this morning.
Some of the diplomatic efforts are done, quite rightly, very visibly through institutions such as the United Nations. Some—I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand why—are perhaps done more discreetly and quietly. The international community is pulling together, both in the region and in Europe and the United States, to try to bring about a meaningful ceasefire and work towards what can only be the right way of bringing permanent peace to the region, which is through negotiated political means.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Israel has the right to defend its citizens from terrorist attack, and I welcome the Minister’s strong confirmation of that this morning. Will he go further, however, and send a message about terrorism by proscribing the whole of Hamas as well as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is making possible these horrific rocket attacks?
James Cleverly
I thank my right hon. Friend for the points that she has made. She will know that the military wing of Hamas is recognised internationally as a terrorist organisation, and the entirety of Hamas has no contact—we have a no-contact policy—from the UK Government. We enjoy good working relationships with the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. Solutions need to be achieved —they must be—through negotiated political means, rather than through military means. She will also understand that we do not speculate on future proscriptions.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) [V]
We are witnessing the second week of horrific violence in Israel and Palestine. It has been reported that 10 have been killed by Hamas, and more than 200 have been killed by Israeli airstrikes, including 65 children. The SNP abhors all indiscriminate violence against civilians so, first, what further steps can the UK Government take in demanding an immediate ceasefire? I am incredibly proud that last month my city of Dundee voted to recognise Palestine as a nation state so, secondly, will the UK Government commit today to recognising Palestine as an equal and independent nation state?
The UN Secretary-General has accused the Israeli Government of acting contrary to their obligations under human rights law. Indeed, Amnesty International has highlighted potential war crime by both Israel and Hamas, so, thirdly, what pressures are the UK Government bringing to bear to investigate these shocking breaches? Lastly, UK arms export licences to Israel have increased by over 1,000% in the past two years. This is not neutrality, so, finally, will the UK Government immediately suspend those exports until they have been thoroughly examined?
James Cleverly
I urge the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, not to equate the legitimate Government of Israel with a terrorist organisation —the military wing of Hamas. As I have said at the Dispatch Box a number of times, Israel has a right to self-defence, but we have made it clear that we expect at all times for it to exercise that in accordance with international humanitarian law, and make every effort to minimise casualties. Ultimately, the best way of minimising civilian casualties is to bring this conflict to a conclusion. That is why we are working with both the Palestinian leadership and the Government of Israel, and with our international partners, both in the region and further afield, to bring this conflict to a timely end, and work towards a more permanent ceasefire and, ultimately, a peaceful two-state solution.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
Reports indicate that at least 500 Hamas rockets—one in seven of the total number fired—have exploded within Gaza. A Palestinian non-governmental organisation has confirmed that eight Palestinians were killed last week by a rocket that fell short. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Hamas rocket fire not only threatens Israelis, but causes grave harm to ordinary Gazans and must be condemned in the strongest possible terms? Would he also acknowledge that, far from being able to negotiate with a democratic Palestinian Government, Israel is facing existential threats from Hamas and Hezbollah, extreme Islamist terrorist organisations funded and backed by Iran, and that there should be no moral equivalence between democratic Israel and the terrorism of Hamas and Hezbollah?
James Cleverly
The UK enjoys good relations with both the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. I urge all Members of the House and those further afield to recognise that Hamas, the military wing of which is recognised as a terrorist organisation, is no friend of the Palestinian people. We will work with the leadership of both the Palestinians and the Israelis, alongside our friends and partners internationally, for peace. Ultimately, nobody wants to continue seeing images of fatalities—either Palestinians or Israelis.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]
Last week, I read the names of four of the then 14 Palestinian children and one Israeli child who had died. A week on, the number of Palestinian children dead is now 63 in Gaza alone. My heart was broken before; it is shattered now.
We need a ceasefire. The UK should not have left it to France to be the main sponsor of a UN resolution calling for it. This Government are shirking their historic responsibility and it is time to step up. Today, I wear my keffiyeh in recognition that if we want lasting peace, we cannot go back to how things were before: the police brutality, the demolitions and the oppression. We need a peace process that is not doomed before it begins. If this Government are committed to a lasting peace, why do they not recognise the state of Palestine?
James Cleverly
I recognise the hon. Lady’s passion for the Palestinian people and her own background. I completely understand how painful it is for her in particular, and for all of us, to see images of those who have lost their lives. I can assure her that we are working with international partners, both at the United Nations and more broadly, to bring about peace. When I last stood at the Dispatch Box and responded to her urgent question, I made the point that the UK was pushing towards a cessation of violence and a ceasefire and that we are absolutely committed to a meaningful two-state solution.
Palestinian recognition is, rightly, an issue to be debated in this House, but at this point our focus is relentlessly on bringing about an immediate end to the conflict so that we can work in good time to a negotiated political solution and a two-state solution for the benefit of both the Israeli and the Palestinian peoples.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the commitment to a two-state solution. Will he update the House on the extent to which we are using our presidency of the G7 to help to broker international consensus for a ceasefire?
James Cleverly
We are using all our diplomatic contacts and our diplomatic leverage. Understandably, the United Nations is the predominant multilateral body through which we are working, but I spoke to a meeting of the Arab ambassadors just this morning. We are ambivalent as to which organisation helps to bring about peace and will work with whomever, wherever we feel able to apply positivity. I assure my hon. Friend that we will leave no stone unturned in our efforts to bring about an end to this conflict.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The sad aftermath of a tragedy in which children who are pulled from the rubble are considered lucky among a three-figure death toll is—the Minister said it himself—people newly displaced from their homes, double refugees and destroyed schools, hospitals and cultural centres, all at a time when we are cutting our aid contribution internationally. Does he agree with his two recent predecessors, Alistair Burt and Alan Duncan, that although UK Government policy is against illegal settlements and for a two-state solution, our long-standing lack of proactivity sometimes makes it look as if we do not really mean that? The only real victor in all this is Netanyahu. Until recently he was a caretaker leader after an inconclusive election; he has now well cemented himself.
James Cleverly
The outcome of democratic elections in the state of Israel is for the Israeli people. We will continue to work with the Governments elected by the Israeli people. It strikes me, however, that that is an important but fundamentally different issue to the subject of the urgent question. We will work with international partners, the Israelis and the Palestinians to bring peace to the region, both in terms of this specific conflict, which we seek to resolve as quickly as possible, and, ultimately, for a sustainable prosperous two-state solution. That remains the UK Government’s policy.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Iran’s role in this conflict is just one more example of Iranian efforts to undermine peace and stability throughout the middle east via its proxy terror group allies. Given that it was exactly that kind of behaviour that many warned was a blind spot in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action agreement, what assurances can my right hon. Friend give today that the current discussions on resuscitating the agreement will not just repeat that mistake all over again and give a free pass to Iran to continue re-arming its Hamas allies?
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. We recognise that in our desire to prevent Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon we cannot be blind to its broader regional destabilising activity. That will remain one of the UK’s priorities. It is regularly raised with me by my interlocuters in the region and I can assure him that that will be at the forefront of our minds throughout the forthcoming negotiations.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
How many more Palestinian children have to be killed? How many more Palestinian homes have to be reduced to rubble? How many more Palestinian schools and hospitals have to be bombed before the British Government take the action necessary to force the Israeli Government finally to stop their war on the Palestinian people? Surely now is the time for all UK weapons sales to Israel to be stopped. Surely now is the time for sanctions on the Israeli Government for their repeated violations of international law. Surely now is the time—this House voted for it back in 2014—to recognise the state of Palestine, because Palestine has the right to exist.
James Cleverly
I remind the hon. Gentleman of the sequencing of the events that unfolded in Gaza and Israel. Israel’s actions were in response to indiscriminate rocket attacks from an internationally recognised terrorist organisation. Israel has the right to self-defence. We have urged it at every step to do so proportionately and to take every step it is able to take to minimise civilian casualties. I am sure that like me he is horrified when we see images of fatalities, whether they be Israeli or Palestinian, and that is why, while the issue of recognition is important, it is not for now. Now is about bringing this conflict to an end.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s statement, but given our history and our legacy, could Britain lean into this more? We called for a ceasefire. Let us ask the United States to join us there as well. It is difficult to see how any tactical or strategic advantage could be gained by either side from continuing this conflict. Once we get to a ceasefire, the old legacy challenges will remain and Israel will require a partner to work with. My concern is that Palestinian elections have not taken place for about 16 years and Hamas is now supported by the Iranians. It has no interest in working with Fatah in the west bank, let alone the Israelis. Does my right hon. Friend agree that perhaps the neighbouring Muslim countries, particularly those that have just signed the Abraham accords, could be invited to help to encourage Palestinians to hold fresh elections, so that we get more representative voices that Israel can work with?
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. The UK has been fully supportive of elections for the Palestinian Authority, which are now well overdue. We have seen on numerous occasions the Palestinian Authority working and co-ordinating with the Government of Israel, and we are always supportive when that is the case. The actions taken by Hamas are not to the benefit of the Palestinian people. The solution to the conflict, both in the short term and ultimately, will be through a negotiated political solution, and I would urge the Palestinian people to choose a leadership that is respected on the international stage and able to negotiate with international partners.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his very balanced response to the questions that have been put. He knows that Hamas is trying to make the Palestinian Authority and Mahmoud Abbas redundant, to make him appear irrelevant and to present itself as the ultimate defender of Jerusalem and al-Aqsa. Our own history in this country proves the folly of doing business with terrorists. Will the Minister take the opportunity today to tell Hamas that the British Government will never do business with terrorists?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman makes the point that the military wing of Hamas is recognised as a terrorist organisation. Ultimately, the future of the Palestinian people should lie in the hands of people who are able to negotiate on the international stage, and Hamas is not in a position to credibly do that.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s call for both sides to step back from the brink and show restraint. Does my right hon. Friend agree that continued escalation in the region will only lead to further violence and more deaths, and that both sides need to urgently down their arms?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes absolutely the right point. The images that we have seen of fatalities and injuries of both Israelis and Palestinians are heartbreaking. We continue to work with international partners to work to peace and an ultimate, sustainable, two-state solution.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) [V]
The images of death, destruction and loss of life all over the region are horrific. The targeted bombing of buildings in Gaza, the tanks on the west bank, and the destruction of education and health facilities is absolutely appalling. Will the Minister explain exactly what is the nature of Britain’s military relationship with Israel? What is the nature of that co-operation with Israel? Can he tell the House whether any munitions sold by Britain to Israel have been used to bomb places in Gaza, and whether any drone equipment supplied by Britain or bought by Britain has been used as a surveillance method on either the west bank or Gaza and followed up by the destruction of civilian life and the death of many people, including the tragedy of the deaths of whole families and children? Our public need to know exactly the nature of that military relationship with Israel. Of course, the Minister rightly says that the occupied territories, which are occupied by Israel, are the places that suffer as a result of this bombardment.
James Cleverly
The UK has a robust arms export licensing regime, and all export licences are assessed in accordance with it. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the UK takes its arms export responsibilities very seriously. I would also remind him that Israel is responding to rockets fired at it from an organisation closely associated with Iran. We would urge all nations to take their arms export responsibilities as seriously as the UK does.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he is working with international counterparts on calming tensions in the region and bringing an end the violence, to ensure that all sides can move towards a peaceful dialogue? Can he also give assurances that he will work to ensure that the hard-won Abraham accords between Israel and the Gulf nations remain intact?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I can assure him that the conversation I had this morning with representatives of the Arab nations, including the representative of the Palestinian people here in London, was balanced, thoughtful and productive. I can assure him that our friends in the region share our desire to see peace come quickly to the region, and we are all working closely with one other to pursue that particular goal.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) [V]
The Minister will be aware that, around the world, people want to see an end to the violence and the rising death toll—both of Israelis and Palestinians—and to see a ceasefire, and they welcome efforts to that effect. However, does he also accept that the long-term solution to these issues lies with the UK Government, among others, demanding an end to forced evictions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem; the UK Government insisting that sacred sites, including the al-Aqsa mosque, are treated with the utmost respect; the UK Government asking for an immediate halt to new settlements and an adherence to international law; and the UK Government recognising Palestine as a state, with full membership of the United Nations? The Minister said earlier that recognition of Palestine is not an issue for now, but I say to him that if justice for the Palestinians is not an issue for now, in the midst of this violence and death, when will justice for the Palestinians be an issue?
James Cleverly
Let me read verbatim a section from my opening speech. I said: “The UK position on evictions, demolitions and settlements is clear and long-standing: we oppose these activities. We urge the Government of Israel to cease their policies related to settlement expansion immediately and instead work towards a two-state solution.” So our position on the very questions that the right hon. Lady raised is clear and long standing, and I do not understand why she is raising them. Again, on the issue of Palestinian state recognition, the UK position is clear and long standing. We will do so when it is most conducive to advancing the peace effort.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Minister’s point on the two-state solution does him great credit and it should be clear for anybody to understand. Long-range rockets at scale are not possible without the involvement of a sophisticated, malign state actor that will never be content until the state of Israel is driven into the sea. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there will never be peace in the Levant, never be a two-state solution and never be a solution of any sort until Iran ceases to be a feral bandit state, uncouples itself from its regime and rediscovers the dignity, poise and leadership appropriate to its history and its culture?
James Cleverly
I thank my predecessor and good friend for the point that he raised. I have already said that the UK encourages Iran to be a more thoughtful and less disruptive regional player and to stop arming and supporting terrorist militia groups in the region. We will continue to work towards a two-state solution with the framework that has been explained from this Dispatch Box many times, and I pay tribute to the work that he did in this role to try to make that a reality.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
Gaza has been under a suffocating blockade for almost 15 years, which already undermines the delivery of healthcare. Having been involved in breast cancer projects in Gaza for many years, I am aware from colleagues that 14 Government hospitals and clinics, including the covid laboratory, have been bombed, along with those run by international charities. We have been in this situation before, so once a ceasefire is finally agreed, what is the Government’s plan to achieve a long-term, yet just solution for both the Palestinians and the Israelis?
James Cleverly
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s work in this area and more broadly in the provision of health services to communities around the world. We are aware of the reports and, indeed, footage of medical facilities that have been damaged or destroyed, but we are also deeply concerned about the continued use by Hamas of civilian infrastructure for its military operations. Ultimately, we seek to bring about an end to the conflict so that humanitarian support can get to the people who need it. We remain one of the most generous humanitarian donors in the world and we are working hard to keep those humanitarian access routes open so that our support and the support of others in the international community gets to the people it needs to.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Hamas has consistently chosen to prioritise its goal of the destruction of Israel over the safety and prosperity of Palestinians, but in conflict it is always the innocent, Palestinians and Israelis, who suffer. That must end and a ceasefire must be agreed. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we cannot just condemn Hamas, but must ensure that moderate Palestinians’ representatives are supported and championed?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend is right; we seek, as does the international community, a peaceful life for the Palestinian people and for the Israeli people. That can be done only through international co-operation, and ultimately it has to be done by representatives of the Palestinian people who respect Israel’s right to exist.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
My mother always wanted me to take a side, either for the Palestinians or the Jews. I can never decide which side I should take, but is it not profoundly unhelpful for us to take a side? If we are going to take a side, would it not make far more sense for us to be on the side of the families who have been fleeing rocket attacks from Hamas, of the families who have been evicted in East Jerusalem or in the illegal settlements, and of the doctors who have seen their facilities bombed or who do not have any vaccines to be able to deal with coronavirus? I know this sounds terribly pious, but in the end do we not just have to be on the side of the humanity in this?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman speaks with a huge amount of wisdom on this. It is perhaps seductive but ultimately futile to work to reinforce a side of an argument while an argument persists. What we should do is seek to end arguments, end conflict, pursue peace and pursue the right of Palestinians and Israelis to live in peace, side by side, in harmony and prosperity. The Government will continue to pursue that as our primary goal in this region.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The Minister says he has a policy on evictions and demolitions in East Jerusalem and the west bank, on the attacks on al-Aqsa and the expansions of settlements, but the illegal settlement and occupation of Palestinian territories has been going on for more than five decades. What is the Minister actually going to do to tackle the causes of violence? What steps are his Government actually going to take?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman answers his own question, in the fact that the tensions in this region have persisted for decades and have done so under both Conservative and Labour Governments. If it were simple and easy, it would have been done. The truth of the matter is that we are seeking to have a sustainable future for both the Palestinian people and the Israeli people. We will work with the representatives of those people and more broadly in the international community to pursue that goal.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con) [V]
I join the Minister in urging both sides to move to a ceasefire to prevent the further loss of life. We have all seen the images of what is happening in Israel and the Gaza strip, and I have to say thank god for the Iron Dome. Were it not for that outstanding piece of Israeli technology, today we would see thousands of innocent Israeli citizens dead and maimed at the hands of Hamas terrorists and no doubt even worse conflict in the region. Does the Minister agree that we must condemn Hamas and weaken its close relationship with Iran, and work to bring moderate Israelis and Palestinians together through co-existence projects?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. There are plenty of thoughtful and passionate Palestinians and Israelis who are determined to bring peace to the region, and we must ensure that their voices are heard. We will work alongside them and our friends more broadly in the international community to that end, and he makes an important point about what might have been the situation had Israeli air defence systems not been as effective as they are.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I am utterly horrified by the scenes unfolding in Gaza, as are hundreds of my constituents who have contacted me to express their concerns. The UK Government are absolutely right to condemn Hamas’s rocket attacks, but they must also condemn in much stronger terms the completely disproportionate response from the Israeli Government, which has resulted in the loss of hundreds of civilian lives, including at least 63 children, coming on the back of sustained breaches of international law for many years. So I ask again: given the UK’s historic responsibility in the region, will the Minister urgently intensify and accelerate efforts with international partners to broker an immediate ceasefire by both sides, and will he suspend arms exports to Israel?
James Cleverly
I have already made clear our desire to see an immediate end to the hostilities, a permanent ceasefire and a negotiated settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis. We have also urged that, in their response to rocket attacks from within civilian infrastructure in Gaza, the Israelis exercise all caution to minimise civilian casualties. That will remain the UK Government’s position on this issue.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Yesterday, Israel facilitated dozens of trucks filled with humanitarian aid, including field hospitals and covid vaccines, to enter Gaza, yet Hamas deliberately fired repeat barrages of mortars at the Israeli crossing terminal, injuring an Israel Defence Forces soldier involved in the aid transfer and killing two foreign workers nearby. Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning that appalling incident, which shows, as he stated earlier, that the actions of Hamas are categorically not in the interests of Palestinian people?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. As I said in my initial response, the targeting of civilians is unacceptable, and the specific targeting of humanitarian support particularly so. I have urged Hamas and other terrorist organisations to cease their targeting of humanitarian access routes, so that our support and the support of others in the international community can get to the people who need it.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) [V]
We heard the Minister’s statement of policy; we just do not understand the strategy for advancing it. He has to realise, like the rest of us, that there is no peace without justice. The way to disarm Hamas, to make progress towards peace and to ensure genuine calm and de-escalation can only be through the full realisation of Palestinian rights and the end of systematic discrimination against Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
It is vital that the UK uses its influence with the United States to insist on a ceasefire. It is vital that the UK Government fully support the International Criminal Court investigation into all alleged war crimes, no matter which party stands accused, including those who are launching appalling rockets and those launching airstrikes. It is vital that we suspend the sale of arms to Israel until we know the outcomes of these prosecutions. Crucially, it is vital that the UK understands that the hope of peace is disappearing because people no longer believe that a two-state solution is possible. That is why we have to act now to sustain hope among Palestinians by ensuring recognition of the state of Palestine. We voted for it in 2014. On 7 July 2020, the Government said:
“The UK will recognise a Palestinian state at a time when it best serves the objective of peace”—
James Cleverly
I recognise the passion with which the right hon. Gentleman speaks, but there can be no legitimisation of indiscriminate rocket attacks against civilian targets from within civilian infrastructure by an internationally recognised terrorist organisation.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his robust support on behalf of the British Government for Israel’s right to defend itself from attack by a proscribed terrorist organisation. Listening to what he said about the prospects for peace, it is clear that Hamas has no interest in dialogue and moving towards peace. What can we do to strengthen the Palestinian Authority, which is a credible partner for peace, and to reduce the influence of Iran, which is trying to strengthen the hand of those who are Israel’s enemies and who do not wish to see peace for the Palestinians?
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. The Palestinian people have many friends and allies in the international community and they have people within their own leadership who are determined to bring about peace and see a peaceful two-state solution. We should find ways of strengthening their voices and their hands and work with them in pursuit of a two-state solution. There are also people who claim leadership or who aspire to leadership who will never accept the existence of an Israeli state, and we cannot, will not and should not work with them.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The nub of this issue, having visited both Israel and Palestine, is a colonial-era mindset of a gradual land grab: the forcible eviction of people from their homes; the building of illegal settlements; the extreme and shameless violation of human rights and international law; and the sheer suppression and humiliation of an entire nation. At this point in time, however, the efforts of the international community should be focused on securing an immediate end to the bloodshed and hostility. So can the Minister explain: where is the logjam and exactly how much aid have we managed to get through to the inhumanely blockaded Gaza?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman makes the important point that the priority at the moment is twofold: an immediate end to the conflict and the immediate access of humanitarian aid. The UK remains one of the most generous donors of humanitarian support to the Palestinian people and we are very proud of that fact. I am not able to give him an accurate assessment, as humanitarian access routes have been closed because of their targeting by Hamas, but we will continue to pursue the joint aims of bringing about a conclusion to this conflict and ensuring that humanitarian support reaches the people who need it.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
Reports emerged yesterday that Hamas had launched a torpedo at Israel’s natural gas field in the Mediterranean and that an armed unmanned aerial vehicle caused an explosion at Israel’s Ashkelon power station. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Hamas’s ability to acquire these non-conventional weapons is a very worrying development? Will he join me in condemning Hamas for targeting energy infrastructure that will disrupt energy supplies not only in Israel, but in Gaza?
James Cleverly
I am not able to confirm the reports to which my hon. Friend referred, but I reinforce the points that I made about the need for Iran not to be a destabilising influence in the region, for Hamas to step back from this conflict and for both sides to step back and pursue peace so that we can work to a negotiated, permanent two-state solution to the region.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I associate myself and my party with the Minister’s opening words about the wholly unacceptable deaths and casualties, particularly of children.
Self-evidently, the first step to peace is to stop the violence. President Biden has expressed support for the ceasefire, according to press reports. Can the Minister reassure me that all relevant international partners are actively working for an immediate ceasefire as a prelude to a substantial international attempt to secure a permanent and just solution?
James Cleverly
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that everyone I have spoken to in the international community is absolutely focused on bringing about an end to this conflict and a ceasefire. That is true within the region, and in respect of our European friends and partners and, indeed, the recent conversations that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had with President Biden’s Administration. That will remain, I have no doubt, the focus of the international community.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
Of Hamas’s many deplorable aspects, its cynical locating of military infrastructure within densely populated civilian areas is perhaps the worst. This was confirmed again yesterday, as Hamas was found to be launching rockets close to a school. Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning this double war crime?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. The location of military activities within civilian infrastructure is completely unacceptable and demonstrates a disturbing attitude towards the lives of the Palestinians that the leadership of Hamas claim to be defending.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]
There are many underlying reasons for this most intractable of conflicts, most notably 54 years of occupation of Palestine and 14 years of the blockade of the Gaza Strip, but the most recent violence and devastating damage and loss of life has been inflamed by Israeli violations of the fourth Geneva convention in occupied east Jerusalem and the rest of the west bank. While I welcome the Government’s long-term focus on peace and the two-state solution, can the Minister tell us specifically what consequences the UK is advocating to the international community to deal with Israel’s illegal actions? What steps is he taking, beyond raising it in bilateral talks with Israeli Ministers, to ensure the end of all settlement building and the cancellation of all forcible evictions and demolitions in Sheikh Jarrah and elsewhere? He has been asked this before but has not given any concrete details in his response. I would be grateful if he did so now.
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady implies that bilateral conversations with partners are somehow invalid, but that is how diplomacy is done. Speaking with our friends and partners around the world and in the region is how we bring about positive change. The UK’s position on settlements, evictions and annexation is well known, and we have been vocal at the Dispatch Box and indeed in our conversations directly with our Israeli interlocutors. That is what we will continue to do. We will continue to work with friends in the international community to seek peace in the region.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con) [V]
Yet again, we see the distasteful spectacle in this place of a pile-on against the democratic state that is under attack from terrorism, while those who hide their murder weapons among children and civilians are given a near-free pass. It is that, and the misinformation circulating from certain groups with regard to access to religious sites, which is directly contributing to the rising hate against some in this country and what we saw on the streets of London this weekend. Will my right hon. Friend call out all those who spread this misinformation?
James Cleverly
I think in issues as sensitive as this we all have a duty to speak carefully to ensure that what we say is accurate. On my hon. Friend’s point about some of the scenes that we saw in London and elsewhere over the weekend, the people who would seek any excuse to perpetrate antisemitic attacks or to say antisemitic things should not be given any justification, whether it be from Members of this House or anywhere else.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab) [V]
The Minister will be aware that the United States has specifically blocked the adoption of a joint UN Security Council statement calling for a halt to Israeli-Palestinian violence. I am sure that Members right across the House agree that we need a joint international approach to achieve a ceasefire. So what steps will the Minister take to urge the US Administration to stop blocking any call for a joint ceasefire? Today the Minister has repeatedly expressed support for a two-state solution. I would just like to understand how the Government expect to command the confidence of the public and the House on this matter when they will not recognise Palestine, one of those two states, because one plus zero does not equal two.
James Cleverly
The United Kingdom will continue working with the whole of the international community, including our European partners, partners in the region and the United States, towards what is our explicitly shared goal, which is an end to the violence and ultimately peace for both the Palestinian people and the Israeli people. That remains our focus and that is what we will work towards.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) [V]
Everyone in this House hopes that hostilities will end soon, with a permanent ceasefire. However, the reality is that there will be further rounds of fighting unless the international community ends Iran’s bankrolling and arming of Gaza-based terrorist groups such as Hamas. Some Members today appear to be defending the actions of that terrorist group. I am not one of them, so may I ask: as nuclear talks continue in Vienna, can my right hon. Friend outline how the P5+1 intend finally to end Iran’s ability to fuel conflict in the region?
James Cleverly
I can assure my hon. Friend that, in addition to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, a priority is for it to cease its destabilising actions in the region. That will remain a priority in our bilateral relationship with Iran and in our multilateral work with regard to Iran. We will continue to pursue an end to the specific violence that we see in Gaza and Israel, and we will redouble our efforts to bring about a sustainable, peaceful two-state solution.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I would like to press the Minister to set out specifically what further actions the Government will take to ensure that there is a co-ordinated international response to secure an immediate ceasefire, and then specifically what the UK will do to address the sources of long-term injustice and insecurity, including forced evictions and the expansion of illegal settlements.
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman would have heard in my response to the urgent question that we have had a long-standing opposition to settlement expansion, demolitions and evictions. Some of our multilateral diplomatic work is done publicly, and some is done more discreetly and privately, but I assure him that we will work closely with our international partners in the region and further afield to pursue peace in the middle east.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Large numbers of people gather at the al-Aqsa mosque to pray. Does the Minister agree that the attacks that we saw on people praying there, and the large number of civilian casualties that resulted, cannot be justified? Will he urge the authorities there to ensure that there is no repeat?
James Cleverly
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the ability of the faithful to worship and the importance of the status quo of the holy sites of all religions in Jerusalem. It is the UK Government’s explicit policy that those holy sites need to be protected, and that worshippers should be able to worship in peace and confidence. That will remain the position of our Government.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
I am very glad that my right hon. Friend has made it absolutely clear today that the current situation was provoked by Hamas firing rockets into Israel, and that Israel has the absolute right to defend itself. The Minister has also referred to the goal of a negotiated political settlement—the two-state solution. We have to accept, do we not, that the continued building of illegal settlements makes that two-state solution ever harder to achieve? What steps can the Government take to dissuade Israel from this policy?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes an important point about actions that might make a two-state solution more difficult. The UK’s position is that continued settlement expansion does make a sustainable two-state solution more difficult, and that is why we have been opposed to that and have communicated our opposition to that to the Israeli Government. We will continue to do so, and that will form part of the work that we put forward to make a peaceful two-state solution more likely, rather than less.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
The UK Government previously halted military export licences to the Israeli defence forces after the attacks in Gaza in 2014, but since 2015 there have followed £400 million of licences to Israel from the UK to date. There exists a profound asymmetry to this conflict, evidenced by the appalling civilian death toll in each territory, with almost 200 Palestinian civilians and 10 Israeli civilians killed—all victims; all wasted lives. Is the UK content to uphold that asymmetry with continued military sales, or will it promote de-escalation dynamically, with renewed limits on military exports to Israel?
James Cleverly
Israel seeks to defend itself against attacks from the military wing of Hamas, which is an internationally recognised terrorist organisation. Our military export licensing regime is very robust, as I have said, and we are proud that we have such a robust arms exports regime in place—all export licences are measured against that. We will work with the Israelis and with the Palestinian people to bring about peace, and once a ceasefire has been achieved we will continue our work to bring about a peaceful, sustainable two-state solution.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
May I thank the Minister for his balanced opening statement in response to this urgent question? Securing a ceasefire will be very difficult, but maintaining it will be more difficult still, so can he confirm that once that ceasefire has been secured, we will offer whatever support we can to the Palestinian Authority, so that they can hold free and fair elections, which are the only way that moderate voices can get into power and then take the country forward?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. A ceasefire to this conflict is the beginning of an incredibly important process, which will include ensuring that the Palestinian people have credible voices to speak on their behalf on the international stage, and that we work together—with the Israelis, the Palestinians and the international community—for the thing that we should all aim for, and which I believe the vast majority of people, both in this House and more broadly, seek to see, which is a peaceful, sustainable and prosperous two-state solution.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I will now suspend the House for a few minutes, in order that arrangements can be made for the next item of business.
Post Office Update
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to update the House on changes to the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry. Over a 20-year period, the Post Office Horizon computerised accounting system recorded shortfalls in cash, which were allegedly caused by sub-postmasters, leading to dismissals, recovery of losses and, in some instances, criminal prosecutions. I know that Members across the House are aware of the terrible impact that this has had on affected postmasters and their families. The life-altering implications of these accounting errors cannot be overstated.
The Post Office Horizon IT inquiry, led by Sir Wyn Williams, was launched in September 2020 as a major step towards righting the wrongs of the past. The inquiry was established on a non-statutory basis to enable the chair to work quickly to establish a clear account of the implementation and failings of the Horizon computer system over its lifetime.
On 27 April, I made an oral statement to the House following the decision by the Court of Appeal on 23 April to quash the convictions of 39 postmasters who had been convicted for Horizon-related shortfalls. As I said then, the Government recognise the gravity of the court’s judgment and the scale of the miscarriage of justice that it makes clear.
Sir Wyn and I are both of the view that the context for the inquiry has changed in the light of the judgment by the Court of Appeal and that now is the right moment to convert the inquiry to a statutory footing. Therefore, I can now inform the House that, with the agreement of the Prime Minister, I will convert the inquiry to a statutory footing on 1 June 2021. I have also agreed that Sir Wyn will now have more time to undertake his work. The inquiry is now expected to report in autumn 2022, rather than summer 2021.
Together, these changes will give Sir Wyn the powers and the time that he needs to conduct an in-depth analysis of the decision-making processes that led to the Horizon scandal. He will be able to compel organisations to provide documents and witnesses to give evidence, under oath if necessary. It is now for Sir Wyn to consider his next steps, and I expect that he will provide more information on his proposed approach soon. In the short term, the inquiry will complete its planned engagements through May, but public hearings that had been expected to take place in June will be delayed.
I have always said that the inquiry should proceed quickly to get the answers that postmasters and their families are seeking. Sir Wyn has gathered a lot of evidence from key parties and engaged with many affected postmasters; I have therefore asked that he provide a progress update to his original timeline of summer 2021, to make public the progress to date and any initial findings. I hope that still more affected postmasters will choose to engage with Sir Wyn as he continues his work on a statutory footing.
The inquiry’s overarching aims—to ensure that the right lessons have been learned and to establish what must change—will remain. However, there will be some changes to the terms of reference in the light of the Court of Appeal judgment. I have today notified the House of the updated terms of reference in a written ministerial statement.
I thank Sir Wyn for his quick progress on the inquiry to date and for taking the time with me in recent weeks to consider the next steps for it. I am pleased to confirm that he has agreed to remain as chair of the inquiry for the next phase.
Finally, I note that converting the inquiry to a statutory footing and proceeding over a longer period will, of course, have cost implications, but I assure colleagues across the House that they are being fully considered with my colleagues in HM Treasury.
The Horizon saga has wrecked lives and livelihoods. We cannot undo the damage that has been done, but we can establish what went wrong at the Post Office and ensure that nothing like it is ever allowed to happen again. The events surrounding the dispute have long been shrouded in darkness, and this Government are determined to bring them into the light. The landmark Court of Appeal judgment changed the context for the inquiry. Following it, the Government did not hesitate to act to give the inquiry more teeth and equip Sir Wyn with more powers. To affected postmasters and their families, my message is that we are listening and we will get to the bottom of this appalling affair. I commend this statement to the House.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) is not able to attend today but, like me, she welcomes today’s statement, including the much belated conversion of the inquiry to a statutory footing and the extension of its scope, although we believe that it does not yet go far enough.
This is indeed the largest legal miscarriage of justice in our history. It is estimated that there have been 900 false prosecutions in total—each one its own story of persecution, of fear, of despair, of families destroyed, of reputations smashed, of lives lost and of innocent people bankrupted and imprisoned. I thank and congratulate everybody who has campaigned over so many years—for more than a decade—to reveal the truth, including the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance and the Communication Workers Union. I also congratulate right hon. and hon. Members across the House who have fought for justice for their constituents; I mention in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who has worked tirelessly on the issue.
The campaign for justice has been long fought, and there is still a long way to go. The Minister’s announcement is a step in the right direction. The Labour party and the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance have always said that the inquiry must be statutory, but less than a month ago in this Chamber, four days after the Court of Appeal’s decision, the Minister rejected calls for a statutory inquiry on the grounds that it would take
“three, four or five years”—[Official Report, 27 April 2021; Vol. 693, c. 254.]
Can he tell us what has happened to change his mind?
The horrific miscarriage of justice did not happen overnight. For a decade, we have known that there were serious problems with the Horizon system, but the Post Office denied all wrongdoing, pursuing the victims and imposing huge lawyers’ fees on the claimants. Even after the High Court ruling vindicated postmasters in 2019, the Government refused to act. The next step has been delayed and victims’ lives have been disrupted by this Government.
It is important to remember that having a statutory inquiry is not, of itself, justice. There remain a number of urgent questions for the Minister that he did not answer a few weeks ago. The Government are the Post Office’s only shareholder, yet time and again, the Post Office was allowed to abuse its power over postmasters. That was the finding of the Court, and it is a really important point. Will the Minister acknowledge the Government’s failure of oversight and due diligence with regard to public money? Will he apologise to the victims and their families today? The postmasters were criminalised for a culture that assumed technology is infallible and workers dishonest. How will the Minister change that, and what are the implications for the management of human teams relying on AI or computer algorithms?
We welcome any new powers for Sir Wyn and the review. It was reported—and this seemed to be in the statement—that Sir Wyn will have the power to summon witnesses to give testimony under oath and to force the Post Office to hand over documents. Can the Minister confirm that, and will that power apply to any other entity or organisation from which evidence is sought? While the terms of reference have been updated, they do not seem to reflect the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central previously. For example, compensation still appears to be out of scope of the inquiry—why? Who has been consulted on the revised terms of reference?
Fujitsu was the one that provided faulty software. An independent investigator, Second Sight, drew attention to that as far back as 2013, yet the Government do not appear to be doing anything to hold Fujitsu to account. Instead, the Horizon software has been renewed, rewarding Fujitsu with a new £42 million contract. Will ongoing Government contracts with Fujitsu be reviewed? Paula Vennells led the Post Office during this time and was honoured with a CBE, along with a long list of others. Is it right that she and others continue to be honoured?
The Minister has referred to a “full and final settlement” for some postmasters with the Post Office. However, he will know that of the £58 million settlement approved in the High Court case, only £12 million will go to the victims, with the rest taken up in legal fees. Does the Minister agree that they should be considered for appropriate compensation?
The JFSA and Labour want there to be a public consultation to guarantee that the inquiry will deliver for all the victims and provide conclusive answers. The Post Office is a Government-owned company that has been found to be at fault. It is vital that the Government act to improve the corporate structure of the Post Office, to prevent this kind of thing from ever happening again. It should never have been allowed to develop into this scandal, but all we can do now is ensure that we get to the truth, that those wrongly convicted get justice and that lessons are learnt.
Securing this statutory inquiry is a big victory for sub-postmasters, trade unions and justice, but despite the Government’s U-turn, this is only the start. The Government have failed to live up to their responsibility to prevent this scandal from occurring, and they have, until today, stood in the way of justice. I urge the Minister to apologise, to own the Government’s mistakes and to start work to ensure that justice is served and that a scandal of this magnitude can never happen again.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I did not want to interrupt the hon. Lady, but Mr Speaker would be annoyed with me if I did not point out that she has taken a minute longer than she ought to have had, and that is a minute that will not be taken later today by some other Member who wishes to speak.
Paul Scully
I send my best wishes to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah); I understand why she cannot be here. I appreciate the response from the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), and I will try to answer some of her questions.
The hon. Lady talked about Ministers’ role in this. Clearly, the role of our Department, Government and Ministers will be included in the inquiry. We do want to learn the lessons, and that will be the case, but as we have seen from the judgment, the Post Office consistently maintained that Horizon was robust and was misguided in its approach to the issue, leading to the decision to prosecute these postmasters. We pressed management on issues regarding complaints brought by postmasters about Horizon and received repeated assurances that the system was reliable. As I say, the inquiry will look into that.
In terms of the Government’s response, we clearly recognise the impact that convictions have had on individual postmasters and their families. That is why the Prime Minister and I met with a small group of them last month, to hear directly from them. They had some incredibly tragic and terrible stories, and I can understand why they find it difficult to trust anybody in this regard after many, many years of difficulty and the impossible situation that they and their families have been in.
On Horizon itself, the Post Office is looking into that. It cannot, unfortunately, just switch off a system and change midstream, but clearly it will be looking to work on the successor CRM—customer relationship management —system. Yes, the terms of reference and the statutory footing allow Sir Wyn to compel people to give evidence and documents, and there are sanctions on them if they should fail to do so, under the Inquiries Act 2005. One of the reasons for that, as we move to the second stage and, I hope, engage more sub-postmasters to give their stories, is that we want to give them the confidence that people will be giving their evidence. I must say that, to date still, everybody involved in this whom Sir Wyn has asked to do so has given their full undertaking and worked on it. Nobody has resiled from the inquiry, but it is important that we do this.
On the terms of reference in relation to compensation, an inquiry, whether statutory or not, cannot determine liability in itself—that still has to be done through the courts—but sub-postmasters clearly can raise, and I would fully expect them to raise, the issue of the losses and difficulties as they outline the difficulties they have had. On Fujitsu, as I have said, clearly the Post Office will be looking at what it does in further compensation, and that will include Fujitsu. There are criminal investigations going ahead, so that is outside the scope of the inquiry, but the GLO—group litigation order—settlement was a full and final settlement. The Government did not have a part in the litigation. It is not part of the inquiry itself, but none the less, this is one part—an important part, but one part—of making sure that we get to the bottom of this and get sufficient justice for the postmasters so badly affected.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
I warmly congratulate the Minister on his statement, and I think it is fantastic news for sub-postmasters. I would like to thank the Prime Minister for meeting sub-postmasters, including my constituent Tracy Felstead, and for understanding the terrible injustice that they have suffered for so long. Can the Minister assure me that compensation will be paid to all those affected, including those who were party to the horrendous struggle that was the group litigation? Does he agree that these sub-postmasters should not be penalised for shining a light on the conduct of the Post Office, and they should not be required to fund the pivotal judgment of Mr Justice Fraser, without which no convictions would have been overturned? Can he please agree with me that compensation must be fair to all sub-postmasters?
Paul Scully
I thank my hon. Friend, who has been really dogged in her championing of Tracy Felstead and many others who have been affected. I was pleased to meet Tracy—who gave such tragic testimony—alongside the Prime Minister. On compensation, the Post Office is engaging in the compensation process. I will, in my regular meetings with the Post Office, make sure that we keep on top of that, because we want to ensure justice and fair compensation for all who have been affected.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan), who is a member of the all-party parliamentary group on post offices. I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I welcome the statement that the inquiry into the Post Office’s Horizon scandal is to be put on a statutory footing—something for which MPs across the Chamber have been calling for months. However, if this is the case, it should have been set out properly by the UK Government in Parliament, not briefed beforehand to the press.
The Horizon scandal has been a serious miscarriage of justice, potentially carried out knowingly. It is a grave injustice that some, sadly, have taken their own lives and others have been imprisoned. The SNP has repeatedly called for a judge-led statutory inquiry, and the Minister and I have had discussions on this previously. Entire lives have been ruined, and it is critical—critical—that no stone is left unturned in securing real justice for those affected. The UK Government must agree to meet all costs as a result of any compensation due, so that the post office network is not impacted. We must not lose sight of that. We absolutely welcome the statutory inquiry, as I have said, but we must also make certain that those responsible are held to account. This is really important.
I want to thank the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance, the Communication Workers Union and the long-standing members of the APPG, who have fought tirelessly for this outcome. I look forward to seeing the Minister next week in my capacity as chair of the APPG, when he comes to talk to us further.
Paul Scully
I always welcome meeting the hon. Lady, and I congratulate her on her work for the all-party group. I appreciate her support for this change and I absolutely agree with her that we have to make sure that in getting justice and righting the wrongs of the past we do not jeopardise the future of the Post Office, with the social value it gives, as well as the economic value, for so many people across this country. We must make sure that we restore confidence for not only future postmasters within the network but its customers, so that it is there for many years to come.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con) [V]
I am delighted that the Minister has announced that we will get the full public inquiry that we have needed for so long, to finally draw a line under this tragic fiasco and get to the truth. Following his and the Prime Minister’s recent meeting with a few of the sub-postmasters caught up in this debacle, including my constituents Mr and Mrs Rudkin, does my hon. Friend agree that the sub-postmasters are ordinary, honest and credible people, who have been caught up in incredible events that were not of their making and not their responsibility, but which have had a massive detrimental effect on their lives and the lives of their families?
Paul Scully
Let me again thank my hon. Friend for his work in raising the case of Mr and Mrs Rudkin and other postmasters, and he is right. Mr Rudkin was one of the leading witnesses who blew a hole in the evidence and this led to success for those postmasters in various stages of the court case and, unfortunately, Mrs Rudkin was left to carry the can in her experience as postmaster. She is very typical of many postmasters who have been affected: ordinary people who are stalwarts of their villages, towns, communities. That is why we must redouble our efforts to seek justice and fair compensation for them.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for an advance copy of the statement. My Select Committee and I called for this inquiry to be on a statutory footing from the beginning and so we welcome the statement today. However, if I have understood it correctly, the terms of reference are still being decided by Ministers and not by the independent chair, Sir Wyn Williams —why?
Paul Scully
No, that is incorrect; this is being done in collaboration with Sir Wyn. I spoke to Sir Wyn shortly after the Court of Appeal’s judgment and comments. He asked for more powers—not just statutory ones but to be able to look further back—and that is why we made changes. Although the inquiry would not explore matters of substantive criminal law, which of course should be decided by the criminal courts, he felt that he could look at this better, first, within the statutory footing and, secondly, with some of the changes to the terms of reference that we have expanded today. That was done in collaboration with Sir Wyn.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
Just a few weeks ago, I asked about this at Prime Minister’s questions, so I thank the Government for listening and I welcome the statutory footing. Justice and peace of mind is one thing, but adequate compensation for the victims is another. Fujitsu must not be let off the hook. What assessment has the Minister made to ensure that Fujitsu contributes to the fund to ensure that people who are still hugely at loss are properly compensated?
Paul Scully
I thank my hon. Friend, a former postmaster himself, for that. He absolutely understands the situation and has been a dogged champion. We did say that if things should change, we would change. Things have clearly changed as a result of the Court of Appeal judgment. He raises a pertinent point about Fujitsu. It is for Post Office Ltd to work out the terms of compensation around this issue, but I am sure it will hear what he said and raise that incredibly pertinent point as redress is sought.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I also give him credit: in the 10-plus years that I, the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and Lord Arbuthnot have been campaigning on this issue, this is the first time that a Minister has admitted that when things go wrong he will change them.
It is right that we get full disclosure of the facts and justice for those who have been wronged. May I ask the Minister about disclosure? Will that include the ministerial submissions from the Post Office throughout this scandal and the role of the Government shareholder on the board of the Post Office? That is key to the reasons why things were not questioned. Also remember that in 2019 the Post Office spent £100 million of taxpayers’ money defending a civil case that was, frankly, completely indefensible.
I stress one last thing to the Minister. I know that Ministers like to hide behind the Post Office, saying that this is its fault. It is not: it is a wholly owned company of the Government. The Government have to take responsibility for some of this; they cannot just blame the Post Office.
Paul Scully
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who has rightly been pushing on behalf of postmasters in general for a number of years.
Yes, nothing is off the table. We want to get justice and answers for people, and that clearly includes the role of the Government and shareholders. The fact is that, yes, we are the single shareholder through UK Government Investments, but that allows Post Office Ltd to work operationally independently of the Government —otherwise, there would be no point in splitting it that way. None the less, as I say, our representatives on the board have been asking that question. We were assured that Horizon was robust in all these areas. None the less, within the inquiry those questions will no doubt be asked and I expect them to be answered.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
I warmly welcome my hon. Friend’s statement and the work being undertaken by Sir Wyn in what is now a statutory inquiry. It is right that the inquiry should look at how on earth this was allowed to happen in the first place—most pertinently, why the Post Office and Fujitsu completely ignored the red flags being waved by trusted sub-postmasters across the network.
Compensation will be key. Sub-postmistress Isabella Wall from Barrow lost her home and business and was left with nothing. Can my hon. Friend guarantee that fair compensation for those who have been completely wronged through this process will be the focus of the Government?
Paul Scully
Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I pass my best wishes to Isabella Wall; I can only imagine what she and her family have been through. We will continue to talk about these issues over the next year, as the inquiry goes through.
Yes, the inquiry looks at what went wrong and goes back historically to give confidence to those affected and in the future network. But clearly we want to make sure that postmasters get fair compensation as well as justice.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for finally recognising the need to make this a statutory inquiry. As he knows full well, at every turn the Post Office has done everything it can possibly do to defend the indefensible. The inequality of arms in terms of legal representation has enabled these persecutions of innocent hard-working men and women. What discussions has he had with the Treasury for funds to be put aside to ensure that these innocent victims get fair and equal representation in this now statutory inquiry?
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Gentleman, who has been persistent in standing up for postmasters.
The situation has been going on for 20 years—a long, long time—and it is so important that we get to the bottom of it. Clearly, we have already been speaking to the Treasury, which has supported the Post Office in a historical shortfall scheme, and we will continue to do so. It is so important that people get fair redress and compensation and that we put the Post Office on a good footing for the future. Although this issue has been going for 20 years, I should say that Post Office Ltd now, under chief executive Nick Read, is determined to look positively to the future while standing up and supporting us in getting the answers about those last two decades.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I was a member of the Select Committee that in March last year heard really distressing accounts from Post Office staff, including constituents of my hon. Friends who were wrongly convicted of discrepancies, and we heard about the devastating effect on their lives. I am really pleased that the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have heard about that for themselves, and I really welcome today’s action. I also heard from Binley Wood’s sub-postmaster, Shailesh Patel, who tells me that he has increasing amounts of hours’ work for reducing commissions. What steps can Minister take to ensure that the Post Office properly looks after its staff who perform such a valuable role in our local communities?
Paul Scully
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about the role that post offices play in communities, which is all based on postmasters. I speak regularly to the chief executive and other people in Post Office Ltd and fair remuneration for postmasters is absolutely at the heart of our discussions to ensure that they keep adding social value.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
You know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am not the sort of man to stand here and say, “I told you so,” but on 20 June last year I told the Minister that this was exactly what was going to happen. I hope that the work Sir Wyn Williams has done thus far will not be wasted and will not have to be repeated. The Minister also knows that of the £58 million settlement given to sub-postmasters by the Post Office, £46 million went in the payment of legal fees. Those legal fees were only necessary because the Post Office sought to defend a case that it should not have been defending. If the Minister really wants to reset the relationship between the Government, the Post Office and sub-postmasters, he could do no better than to give an undertaking today to give that money back to the postmasters.
Paul Scully
First, I can say that the work of Sir Wyn to date will not be wasted. That is exactly why we are converting the inquiry into a statutory inquiry rather than stopping and starting again—to allow him to continue his work until we get to phase two. On the group litigation settlement, I have talked about the fact that it was a full and final settlement, but I understand exactly where the right hon. Gentleman is coming from. That is not within the scope of the inquiry, but we will continue to look at what we can do to give a fair settlement of compensation for postmasters in the different tranches of the stages of the civil and criminal cases.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. I welcome the changes to the Horizon scandal inquiry, and I think it will help those seeking justice and compensation. I think it will also help boost trust in the inquiry. Trust is central to a thriving Post Office and trust is necessary for people to take on the role of sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress with any certainty or security. If people do not take on a Post Office licence, then post offices will disappear from our high streets and the critical role they play in our communities will be lost. How will my hon. Friend work with the Post Office to rebuild that trust to ensure our post office network serves our communities long into the future?
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. My uncle was a postmaster. I remember him retiring and putting his savings into a post office in Leicestershire many years ago, pre-dating the knowledge of the Horizon situation. I wonder whether he would have done that again years later. That is why it is so important that we get these answers and get that settlement to give former postmasters justice. It is also really important—I know this is happening—that Post Office Ltd recalibrates its relationship with postmasters to ensure they feel a valued part of the company as well as the community, rather than distant stakeholders.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]
The last time the Minister came to the House, I asked him if full legal costs would be compensated. He said then that he would lean in on that and ensure everyone was adequately compensated. It may be that his idea of adequate may not be same as those affected, so I ask him again: will full legal costs be included in compensation packages?
Paul Scully
As I say, compensation packages are a matter for Post Office Ltd and we will continue to work with it on that. Post Office Ltd is working with wronged postmasters to determine how that compensation package should look.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
I know my hon. Friend understands the financial and emotional suffering that this process has caused many postmasters and their families, including some of my constituents, and I welcome this statement today. Is he able to reassure the House that the Government will do everything within their power to encourage affected postmasters to come forward and engage with the inquiry so that their voices can be heard?
Paul Scully
Absolutely. It is incumbent on us all, and I really hope that we can give confidence to sub-postmasters—not just those who have had their convictions quashed, but wider members of the group litigation. All postmasters should feel some confidence that they can come forward, tell their stories and know that we hat we are determined to get them answers.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
The Post Office scandal is one of the gravest miscarriages of justice in this century. It destroyed many lives and families, and justice must be given to these families in full. While I welcome the premise of a statutory inquiry, will the Government address the limited remit of the inquiry, which does not cover compensation or the accountability of managers in this scandal?
Paul Scully
To be fair, the accountability of managers will absolutely be in the inquiry, because that is part of the expansion of it. Sir Wyn can now look right the way out to the settlement of the group litigation and ensure that it is not just about the wrongs of the 20 years, but the lead-up to that civil case as well. I have answered the question about compensation in as much as an inquiry, statutory or not, cannot determine liability in itself. That needs to go through the courts, but I dare say that postmasters giving evidence will share their experiences of their financial losses, as well as the emotional impact on them and their families.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
The behaviour of the Post Office and the failures of Fujitsu have destroyed the lives of many hard-working and innocent postmasters. The Minister is clearly right to put this inquiry on a statutory footing, but what will he be able to do to ensure that, whatever the inquiry concludes, the Post Office acts on those recommendations and the report is not simply allowed to gather dust in a drawer?
Paul Scully
Part of the inquiry is to measure whether the Post Office has put into place the things that it has promised to do as a result of the civil litigation and the many, many pages of evidence and comment by Mr Justice Fraser. There are many areas there that should put the Post Office on a firm footing for the future relationship with its postmasters. This part of the inquiry is testing whether they have done so already.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Last week, we received news that Barclays was closing its last branch in Ammanford, the main town in my constituency, leaving only one remaining bank—a fate shared by all the market towns in my constituency, some of which have been left with none. That leaves the Post Office the last remaining financial provider of everyday vital services for our communities. That fate is, I would imagine, shared across the whole of Wales and the rest of the UK. Is it not time to give sub-postmasters the option of being recognised as employed workers, as opposed to independent contractors, so that they are remunerated properly for the vital role they play in our communities and as a means of righting the wrongs served upon them by the Horizon scandal?
Paul Scully
The Post Office speaks regularly to the unions and to postmasters in general. Two postmasters have been elected to serve on the board, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to talk about access to cash. The Post Office has good plans to pilot new ways of access to cash to replace the last bank in town, an issue that he rightly articulates.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
As a former chair of the all-party group on post offices, I welcome the Minister’s announcement that this inquiry into the absolute disaster of the Post Office-Horizon IT issue will be put on a statutory footing. This issue has already damaged the lives of many people and shaken confidence not just in our ability to have effective public sector software contracts, but indirectly in our justice system which, because of wrong information, delivered wrong verdicts. The opportunity to provide redress for many of those involved is surely vital for us all. Will the Minister confirm that all possible technical advice will be provided to the inquiry so that some of the technical issues, such as the data library and so on, will be exposed—and, above all, who knew what? Will he also confirm that the role of the National Federation of SubPostmasters will be looked at closely to see what alarm bells it sounded and what communication there was between it and Post Office Ltd?
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Sir Wyn will look at both those things—he will look at those alarm bells—because that is so important to learn those lessons. We cannot learn them any other way, so he is right to do that. Clearly, with this being a computer software issue over two decades, Sir Wyn is getting the technical advice that he needs, and he will always have that support from us. We will make sure that he gets whatever he is asking for in terms of technical support.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) [V]
Serious concerns have been expressed about the conduct of many of the private prosecutions that led up to the 900 or so wrongful convictions of innocent sub-postmasters, including some of my constituents, so why have the Government declined to accept the Justice Committee’s recommendation to introduce a binding and enforceable code of standards for private prosecutors and an inspection regime that would have identified these abuses at a much earlier stage? Will the Minister now accept that recommendation?
Paul Scully
The private prosecutions themselves, and the use of private prosecutions, are not within the scope of the inquiry, but clearly the way that the Post Office investigated this absolutely is. The Post Office has not used a private prosecution since, I think, 2013 and has pledged not to use them, but we will always look into the systems of prosecutions. As I said in my last statement, there are clearly wider lessons to be learned for the justice system in general.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement. On behalf of my constituents on Anglesey, I welcome the news that those wrongly accused will not face prosecution. I have many happy memories of spending time as a child at my great-grandfather’s post office, and I have seen at first hand how vital the role is that postmasters play in the community. Will the Minister confirm that the recommendations from the inquiry will be used to be ensure that this travesty, which has torn apart lives, including those of people such as Margery Williams and Noel Thomas, both of Ynys Môn, will never happen again?
Paul Scully
Yes, I assure my hon. Friend, regarding Noel Thomas and Margery Williams, that we must right the wrongs for these people and for many, many others. I just want to correct her on one thing because, yes, the Post Office will not be prosecuting any more, but we clearly have to get through the judicial process for the many, many people who have been prosecuted and to see exactly how many of them have been prosecuted with Horizon being a significant factor in the prosecution. The Court of Appeal has a lot of work to do following this statement.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s change of heart. It will provide much-needed reassurance, as he mentioned, to sub-postmasters, including my constituent, John Bowman, whom I mentioned to the Minister previously. What will happen now for the sub-postmasters who have lost everything so that they have the financial confidence to get evidence to Sir Wyn’s inquiry? If they cannot afford to give that evidence, if they require legal support, what work is the Minister doing with the Treasury to ensure that those postmasters who have lost everything, including, in some cases, their homes, have the funding available to take part in this now statutory inquiry?
Paul Scully
We absolutely want sub-postmasters to give evidence. There is obviously a cost implication in extending the inquiry and making it statutory. I am working through that process with my colleagues in the Treasury, and we want to make sure that everybody and anybody who has been affected can come forward to give that evidence with confidence, no matter what their financial situation is.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
My sympathy goes to everyone affected by this appalling scandal. Looking to the future, does the Minister agree that one of the best ways that we can support sub-postmasters and the post office network, which means so much to our constituents, is by using it to deliver more Government services? Up to now that been made difficult by EU procurement rules, which we can now change?
Paul Scully
Those are exactly the things that each Government Department that has traditionally used the Post Office will continue to explore. None the less, the Post Office does not necessarily just need to be limited to Government services. There are plenty more things that it can do to modernise and ensure that it better reflects customer demand. I push the chief executive Nick Read on this point, although he does not need pushing on it because he is very front-footed on the situation himself.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I welcome the move to a statutory inquiry, but also note the extension of the timescale for the inquiry; it has been extended, I think, by some nine months or so. John and Pat Moir had a post office in Winlaton Mill in my constituency and were caught up in the Horizon scandal. They are now constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), who had hoped to ask a question herself. Mr and Mrs Moir have spent more than a decade fighting this case and fighting to clear their name. Clearly they welcome this inquiry, but what assurances can they have that it will work to the timescales, so that they and others can see the outcome before more time passes?
Paul Scully
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to ask that question. One of the key reasons why I originally set it up as a non-statutory inquiry was to ensure that we were not overly burdened with bureaucracy and the need to “lawyer up”, which tends to extend statutory inquiries to three years and beyond. I have said to Sir Wyn that I do want an interim report to the original timescale, so that we can show the public progress, but we are going to have an extra year to ensure that extra evidence is considered. We will hold him to time as best we can, but we do want to ensure that we get the answers.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
The importance of the Post Office has increased in every community across this country, especially as high street banks continue to close, as is the case in Radcliffe in my constituency, where there are now no banks. Does my hon. Friend agree that postmasters truly are the backbone of the Post Office, that it is those postmasters who have delivered such vital services up and down the country, particularly in towns such as Radcliffe, Whitefield and Prestwich, and that we need to strengthen that relationship? Does he therefore share my concern about the way in which many have been treated by the Post Office through this scandal?
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is what is so galling for the postmasters who had those roles in the past. They were the stalwarts and the backbone of their community; the stigma of being accused of false accounting or fraud must have been so unbearable, as we know from the incredibly tragic testament that we have heard. As well as getting answers on that, we want to reset the relationship with postmasters so that they can go back to being the centre of their community, adding such social value, and bringing and keeping communities together.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I am sure that the whole House will join me in welcoming the fantastic news that the sub-postmasters wrongly accused across the UK will no longer face prosecution, meaning that this hugely difficult time for them is finally at an end. I shall always stand by Rother Valley’s hard-working sub-postmasters and postmasters. It is incredibly important that full and timely justice is served. Will my hon. Friend therefore commit to holding the Post Office’s feet to the fire, ensuring that it studies carefully whatever recommendations may arise from the inquiry to ensure that this can never ever happen again?
Paul Scully
This is the end of the beginning. Clearly, there is a long way to go to ensure that we get the answers, but in holding the Post Office’s feet to the fire, I do not want to add stigma to the Post Office moving forward; for the reasons that we have heard today, post offices are right at the heart of all our communities, so it is important that we have that day zero to reset the Post Office’s future relationship with postmasters and its communities while getting answers, justice and fair compensation for those who have been wronged over the last two decades.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I do welcome the statement, but it has taken far too long for it to happen. My constituent was held responsible for missing funds, charged, convicted and sentenced to 13 months in prison. It cost her not only her home, which she had to sell to meet these debts, but her marriage. She was left penniless and had to move out of the area, and is understandably concerned that nearly 40% of the compensation awarded is just swallowed up by legal costs. As others have said, that has to be addressed. My constituent has lost everything. What does appropriate compensation look like for people like her?
Paul Scully
I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s constituent will feel confident in coming forward and outlining her case and those financial losses, exactly as he has described, so that Sir Wyn can take a holistic view. On compensation, as I say, the Post Office now needs to ensure that it works with the postmasters and addresses issues such as Fujitsu, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) talked about earlier, and that it compensates all these wronged postmasters in a fair way.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
My hon. Friend will be well aware that the overwhelming majority of men and women who run our post offices are small business owners who work extremely long hours and have to deal with extremely complex and different sets not only of accounts but of transactions. Given the circumstances that have arisen under the Horizon scandal, what actions will he take to ensure that the position is rebalanced between those small business owners and the vast monolith of the Post Office, so that we get justice for everyone running these businesses?
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That process is already taking place under the leadership of Nick Read, who comes from an independent supermarket background, where he managed to grow a culture very similar to the relationship that he describes wanting to see in the Post Office. That is why I am confident that, if we can get these answers and get recompense, justice and fair compensation for those who have been wronged, we can recalibrate the relationship between Post Office Ltd and the sub-postmasters—those small business people in their communities that my hon. Friend mentions.
Points of Order
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will recall that in 2013, the former Prime Minister set up an independent panel to investigate the failed investigations by the Metropolitan police of the horrific murder of Daniel Morgan. That independent panel was meant to be completely independent of Government. It produced its report last week. The terms of reference make it very clear that the only role that the Home Secretary has is in arranging publication of the report to Parliament. The panel thought that that would happen the next sitting day, which should have been this past Monday. For some unknown reason, the Home Office has decided to delay it. There is no guarantee when the report will be published at all.
Is there any means of our making sure that the Government publish the report and that, when it is published—I have not seen it, but it might raise very serious issues for policing and of corruption in this country—the Home Secretary comes to the House in person and makes an oral statement on the back of it?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for having given me notice of his point of order. I can answer his main question simply by saying that I have not received any notice from the Home Office that it intends to make a statement about this matter. That does not mean that Ministers will not possibly decide to come to the Chamber next week to address the matter.
The hon. Gentleman knows that Ministers’ appearances in the Chamber are not a matter for the Chair, but he also knows that there are many ways in which he can seek to require that a Minister comes to the Chamber, and I am sure that he will pursue those lines of inquiry. I also note that those on the Treasury Bench will have taken note of what he has said and what I have said, and that those matters will be conveyed to the appropriate Ministers.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On Monday at the Dispatch Box, the Secretary of State for Health stated:
The truth is that when we put Pakistan and Bangladesh on the red list, positivity among those arriving from those countries was three times higher than it was among those arriving from India.—[Official Report, 17 May 2021; Vol. 695, c. 430.]
However, the data he referred to, which he directed me to in the same debate, states that India’s positivity rate was 5%, Bangladesh’s was 4% and Pakistan’s was 6%, from 25 March to 7 April. It is during that two-week period that Bangladesh and Pakistan were put on the red list, so it is clear from that data that the positivity rates were not three times higher, and that in fact India’s positivity rate was higher that Bangladesh’s when Bangladesh was put on the red list. As the Secretary of State is here, Madam Deputy Speaker, can you urge him to clarify his comments?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The hon. Lady knows that that is not a matter for the Chair. She is seeking to continue a debate or an exchange of questions and answers that occurred earlier in the Chamber—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady must not interrupt when I am answering her question. She cannot answer back.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I accept her apology. I was about to say that we are about to have a debate, and that the right time for the hon. Lady to raise these matters will be during the debate. However, I notice that the Secretary of State is at the Dispatch Box, and if he would like to deal with the matter now, I will exceptionally allow that to take place. However, I do not encourage Members to raise points of order in this sequence of events.
Matt Hancock
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thought that point might come up in the forthcoming debate, but since it has come up now, I can address the question. Of course it is important that parliamentary debates use accurate statistics, so I want to correct the hon. Lady. I can give her the statistics on which the decision was taken. The positivity rates on which we took the decision to put Pakistan, but not India, on the red list were 1.6% in India and 4.6% in Pakistan, which is three times higher, as I said.
There is a further point that is important in this debate, which is that the dates covered by the data that the hon. Lady just gave, and that were widely circulated in the media this morning, included dates after the decision was taken. It is perfectly reasonable to hold politicians to account for the data on which their decisions are taken, but unfortunately we cannot take decisions based on data that has yet to occur. I have just given the facts, and we will now be able to have a debate not only on those facts but on others. It is important that we stick to the facts.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his clarification of that point of order. I reiterate that points of order should not be used in this way. That was a matter for debate, and it is exceptional that I have allowed this exchange, because I recognised the matter to be exceptional and important. I do not encourage hon. Members to bring forward points of order in this way in future.
I will now briefly suspend the House in order that arrangements can be made for the next debate.
Debate on the Address
A Plan for the NHS and Social Care
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 264 / Noes: 367 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:08 - The House divided: - Ayes: 265 / Noes: 367 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:17 - The House divided: - Ayes: 265 / Noes: 366 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:25 - The House divided: - Ayes: 367 / Noes: 264 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, which will be moved at the start of the debate, and amendments (j) and (g), which will be moved at the end.
Madam Deputy Speaker
No. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that his amendment was not selected.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move an amendment, at the end of the Question to add:
“but respectfully regret that the Government has provided insufficient information for its proposals properly to be scrutinised; and therefore beg leave that she will be graciously pleased to give directions that the following papers be laid before Parliament: the DHSC internal review of their operation during the pandemic as referenced by the Prime Minister’s official spokesman on 12 May.”
May I take this opportunity to note that although amendment (e) in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has not been selected, its contents, which relate to brain injury, are important and welcome? I hope that Ministers take on board its recommendations.
Chris Bryant
It is all too tempting to intervene; I have never objected to temptation. On brain injury, I just want to say that I really want us to think about legislation now. The United States of America has made dramatic changes—it has introduced legislation four times now—and I think it is time we went down that route.
Jonathan Ashworth
I completely agree. I hope that Ministers on the Treasury Bench have listened carefully. If they are prepared to bring forward legislation, we would work constructively across the House to ensure its speedy passage. May I thank my hon. Friend for the reference in his amendment to the impact of alcohol abuse on children? He knows that it is a subject very close to my heart; on behalf of the children of alcoholics community, I am grateful that he referred to it in his amendment.
Although we have often said this in the House, I still think that the whole House will want to remember today the 127,691 people so far who have lost their lives to covid-19, this awful disease, including the 850 health and care workers. Although repeating the numbers has become almost routine in this House, that does not make the scale or gravity of the loss any less shocking. We grieve as a nation and we all pay tribute to our healthcare workers, our social care workers and our public sector workers.
I am sure that the whole House will want to dedicate itself in good faith to learning lessons for the future. Sadly, we are in an era when, according to the experts, pandemics are becoming more predictable and will become more regular because of climate change and biodiversity loss, so learning lessons is about preparing better for the future rather than settling scores.
We know that the B1617.2 variant is spreading. From the data that I have seen, it appears to have a growth rate advantage of about 13% over the B1117 variant. It could well become the dominant strain in the United Kingdom. Although vaccination should mean that many are much safer and ought to avoid hospitalisation, the Government still have a responsibility to do all they can to contain its spread, minimise sickness and ensure that the 21 June target is not disrupted, if at all possible.
That is why I said on Monday that we need more surge vaccination in hotspot areas. We know that with vaccination there are always pockets where rates are lower than necessary, and we need to drive those rates that up. We have seen that throughout history—with measles, for example. So we urge the Government again to do all they can to drive up vaccination rates in Bolton, Bedford, Blackburn and other areas where we know there is an issue. We also need the Government to do more to contain the virus through test, trace and isolate. We need more surge testing. We need more enhanced contact tracing locally, with local authorities given the resources to carry it out. We need sick pay and isolation support fixed as well.
For those who are going in to work, or for those who are now socialising in premises, those buildings and premises need proper air filtration systems. There are experts now who can easily fix filtration systems in buildings to make them much more covid secure, and we should be inspecting workplaces in all these areas to ensure that every workplace is covid secure.
We need transparency in decision making as well. For the first time in my life, I think, I find myself agreeing with Mr Dominic Cummings. I know the Secretary of State does not often agree with Mr Dominic Cummings, but I find myself agreeing with Mr Dominic Cummings, who tweeted yesterday:
“With something as critical as variants escaping vaccines, there is *no* justification for secrecy, public interest unarguably is *open scrutiny of the plans*”.
Mr Cummings, on this occasion, is correct. [Interruption.] A wry laugh from the Secretary of State. Mr Cummings may well have been saying something different when he was in government; I do not know, but at least his public statement yesterday is correct. That is why our amendment calls for the publication of a Government lessons-learned review; not so that we can try to undermine the Government or find some hole to use across the Dispatch Box, but so that we can learn the lessons in our efforts to contain variants, and ensure that we are better prepared for the future. I hope the Secretary of State looks sympathetically upon that request, and perhaps joins us in the Division Lobby this evening.
I now turn to the contents of the Gracious Speech more generally. This should have been the Queen’s Speech that unveiled a new NHS plan to bring down the elective waiting list, which now stands at 5 million. This should have been a Queen’s Speech that outlined proposals to tackle the backlog of 436,000 people waiting over 12 months for treatment—many of them waiting in pain and anxiety, many of them facing permanent disability as a consequence of those waits.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Jonathan Ashworth
I will certainly give way to my fellow Leicester City fan.
Jim Shannon
The shadow Minister and I, and many others in this House, shared that wonderful victory on Saturday. After 139 years of Leicester City, we won the FA cup; it is great news.
I chair the all-party parliamentary group for respiratory health. This morning, we were given some very worrying figures. They indicated that the halting of the lung cancer screening pilots restricted access to diagnostic tests, contributing to a 75% drop in urgent lung cancer referrals. Does the shadow Minister agree with me, and share my concern, that the outcomes for patients with the fastest-progressing cancers, such as lung cancer, are indeed very worrying?
Jonathan Ashworth
The hon. Gentleman is spot-on. I will come on to cancer in a few moments. He is a great champion for improving cancer care, and I thank him for reminding the House that Leicester City won the FA cup on Saturday. It is a reminder that even when the odds are stacked against them, a small team can still beat a well-funded, complacent opposition.
I will now move on to elective waiting lists. Where is the plan in this Queen’s Speech to bring down the rocketing waiting lists for treatment and surgery? Where is the plan to roll out technology such as in ophthalmology, for the thousands in our constituencies awaiting cataract operations? There are already 81,762 of our constituents waiting over 12 months for orthopaedic surgery. Where is the plan to get on with the hip replacements and knee replacements that many of our constituents will be raising with us in our surgeries, and how much longer will they have to wait? Where is the plan for the 24,407 of our constituents who are now waiting over 12 months for gynaecological surgery? How much longer will they have to wait?
Everyone understands that there has been a pandemic and that that has meant a disruption in care pathways, but the NHS was forced into this unprecedented position because we went into the crisis on the back of 10 years of Tory underfunding and cutbacks. We went into this crisis on the back of a 6% reduction in bed numbers between 2010 and 2019. That is why, at the beginning of 2020 when we debated the last Gracious Speech, 4.5 million people were on the waiting list for treatment. The target of 92% of patients beginning treatment within 18 weeks of referral from their GP had not been met for five years. We need a resourced plan now because the queues are set to lengthen further, as those who may have delayed seeking treatment for fear of covid infection will begin to emerge once again. Even though the NHS is dealing with significantly fewer covid patients, it is still operating at a much-reduced capacity and is unable to treat everyone in need of care.
Infection control measures meant that the number of beds fell by 9% in the first quarter of last year. It has only partially recovered in the past three months, but the number is still 6% lower than the previous year. What that means when we look at the most recent figures is that, on average, there are almost 4,000 fewer patients in NHS general and acute beds than the equivalent pre-covid period.
The Prime Minister has delayed the review of social distancing for entirely understandable reasons, but we must have a plan to drive up this capacity in the NHS. The solution to these capacity issues in the NHS cannot be a multi-billion pound deal with the private sector. The loss of capacity in terms of beds in the NHS is actually far larger than the whole capacity offered by the private sector. In order to reopen those closed and empty general and acute beds in the NHS, we need more capital investment. This investment needs to be built up now, so that the NHS can get on with the routine surgery that it will clearly have to confront in the coming years. I am afraid that, both the Queen’s Speech and, indeed, the Budget from a few weeks ago, failed to deliver that.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that under no circumstances would he use the independent sector to reduce the pressure on elective surgery waiting lists?
Jonathan Ashworth
If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the answer to driving up capacity is just a four-year £10 billion deal with the private sector, then we will not be in a position to reopen the beds over the coming years in the NHS. That is the issue. It undermines capacity in the NHS. We need capital investment in the NHS, so that we can drive up capacity.
James Cartlidge
Let me repeat the question: is the hon. Gentleman explicitly ruling out using the independent sector at all to drive down that backlog?
Jonathan Ashworth
The independent sector is not the answer to this. The answer is investing in capital in the NHS. In the hon. Gentleman’s local area, there are 8,485 patients waiting for diagnostic tests—that is 25% when the operational standard is supposed to be 1% or less. He should be arguing for capital investment in the NHS, but he is not, and he is not sticking up for his constituents.
Jonathan Ashworth
I want to make a bit of progress. If the hon. Gentleman wanted more beds in the NHS and greater diagnostic capacity, he would have been arguing for capital investment in the NHS, which we did not get in the Budget and we did not get in the Queen’s Speech.
That brings me to diagnostic capacity—I have just given the hon. Gentleman his local diagnostic figures. [Interruption.] This is not about new hospitals; this is about diagnostic capacity. The Secretary of State knows that we still have some of the lowest numbers of computerised tomography scanners and magnetic resonance imaging scanners per capita in the OECD. We still have only average amounts of RTE radiotherapy machines. We need investment in this technology, which we are not getting in sufficient amounts. That is why, in the past year or so, we have seen 4.6 million fewer diagnostic tests for cancer. Some 46,000 fewer people are starting cancer treatment. We should not have to choose between covid care and cancer care, but, for too many, that has been the reality of the past year, and it means that 4,500 additional avoidable cancer deaths are expected in the next 12 months. It means that progress in survival rates for colorectal cancer, breast cancer and lung cancer is expected to be undone. The proportion of cancers diagnosed while still highly curable has dropped from 44% to 41%.
The long-term plan, on which the Secretary of State fought the election, promised rapid action on cardiovascular disease. Experts now predict the highest cardiovascular mortality in a decade, and they predict 12,000 additional heart attacks and strokes over the next five years. The Queen’s Speech needed to include proposals to expand access to the appropriate cardiovascular healthcare facilities, but it also needed to include real interventions to tackle smoking and alcohol rates, and to reduce salt intake. Yes, there is a commitment to a tobacco control plan, but will there be a reversal of the 17% cuts to smoking cessation services? Given that 7,400 people died last year from alcohol abuse—a record number—will the Secretary of State reverse the cuts to drug and alcohol addiction services, with budgets being cut by 15% over the past three years?
We have been promised action, again, on banning junk food advertising, but when? I have heard the Secretary of State—and, to be fair, his predecessor—make that promise at the Dispatch Box many, many times, but when will we have the ban? When will he reverse the cuts to public health weight-management services?
Narrowing health inequalities should be at the heart of every Government policy, but there can be no levelling up while life expectancy advances stall for the poorest in society. Levelling up and tackling inequalities apply to mental health outcomes as well. More people suffer from depression in the poorest areas of the country than the richest. We know that the mental health problems are prevalent among certain minority ethnic communities —black men, in particular, are more likely to be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, more likely to be subjected to seclusion or restraint, and less likely to access psychological therapies. We therefore welcome the commitment to reform the Mental Health Act, as we welcomed it last year, and I look forward to working constructively with the Secretary of State on reforming the Act. I would like to put on record my thanks to Sir Simon Wessely for his pioneering work on this front. Simon is a committed Chelsea fan, so I dare say that he will be more responsive to my felicitations this morning than he might have been on Saturday evening.
We face a crisis in mental health now, and we need action now. Two hundred and thirty five thousand fewer people have been referred for psychological therapies; eating disorder referrals for children have doubled; and the pandemic—again, because of infection control measures —has meant a reduction of almost 11% in beds occupied, which is equivalent to 1,700 fewer patients over the past three months compared with a year earlier. When will the Government implement their promise of significant increases in staff and resources for mental health, to ensure that mental healthcare is genuinely given parity of esteem with acute services?
That brings me to staffing more generally. Given that we are short of 200,000 staff across the health and social care sector, why was there nothing new in the Queen’s Speech to recruit more doctors, nurses and social care staff? Why was there no plan to give our NHS staff the pay rise that they deserve? NHS staff, including nurses who have cared for those with covid on wards, and district nurses who, in the first wave, cared for those who were discharged from hospital earlier than planned so that they could stay at home safely, have gone above and beyond, yet they feel that the 1% pay rise, which could well turn out to be a real-terms cut because of inflation, is a kick in the teeth. Is it any wonder that nurses are leaving the profession, including the nurse who cared for the Prime Minister, blasting Ministers for treating NHS workers with a total lack of respect? It is simply not fair. Our NHS staff deserve better.
The gaping hole in the Queen’s Speech is the plan for social care. Two years ago, the Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street and said he had a plan to fix social care. He said:
“we will fix the crisis in social care once and for all with a clear plan we have prepared to give every older person the dignity and security they deserve.”
It was not a plan to be developed, or work in progress; no, this was a plan that was already done—oven-ready, you might say, Madam Deputy Speaker. But two years on, where is it? Has the Health Secretary seen it? What do we need to do to see it—perhaps we could pay for some cushions in the Downing Street flat? The Government promised us cross-party talks. They now brief that cross-party talks have taken place, but when—did they forget to send the Zoom link?
However, there is a consensus on social care, isn’t there? Care workers should be paid the living wage and proper sick pay. There should be a cap on costs, as this House legislated for. When the Institute for Public Policy Research, social care and older people’s charities and a House of Lords Committee, which, at the time, consisted of true-blue Thatcherites such as the noble Lords Lamont and Forsyth, have all called for reform of free personal care, why is the Secretary of State not engaging in that debate with us? To be frank, though, lack of cross-party talks is not an excuse for not getting on with reform. A Prime Minister with an 80-seat majority should be able to show some leadership and get on and fix social care.
If the Health Secretary wants to talk social care reform, I am free this afternoon. He knows where I am. I am happy to sit down with him at any time and discuss it. I think we would have very constructive conversations on this one, because it is true to say, as Members have detected, that we have developed something of a bond these past 12 months. The Health Secretary has been so friendly to me across the Dispatch Box that I am half expecting to win a lucrative PPE contract by the end of the day.
Because we have this new friendship, I have, as we say on the Labour Benches, some comradely advice for the Health Secretary. I know he is bringing forward a Bill to neuter the independence of the NHS chief executive and bring powers back to the Secretary of State. I have been around a long time and I remember when Tory MPs used to complain that the NHS needed independence, but we will leave that to one side. I just suggest that he ought to be careful what he wishes for, because I have been reading the Evening Standard, where Mr Tom Newton Dunn reveals not only that Simon Stevens, whom the Secretary of State is trying to neuter, was best man at the Prime Minister’s wedding, but that the Prime Minister is said to be about to appoint Simon Stevens—I beg your pardon, Lord Simon Stevens—to, yes, you guessed it, the newly empowered post of Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. It brings a whole new meaning to the phrase, “the best man for the job”, doesn’t it? But this is a Secretary of State who set up Test and Trace, who was responsible for PPE procurement and who failed to protect care homes. Dominic Cummings said the Department under his leadership was a “smoking ruin”—and now he wants more control.
The Queen’s Speech was remarkably unspecific in its description of the contents of the coming health and social care Bill, so perhaps the Secretary of State can reassure us today. Can he commit to ensuring that neither the NHS nor the partnership force to be set up in each integrated care system will permit the inclusion of private sector participants? Will he rule that out? Can he guarantee that as statutory bodies ICSs will meet in public, publish board papers and be subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000? What guarantees can he give this House that the establishment of integrated care systems will not lead to more private corporations taking over GP practices, as has happened recently with Centene, or services currently delivered by NHS providers? I hope he can give us those very simple reassurances today.
With nearly 5 million people on the waiting lists and rising, ever-lengthening queues in our constituencies waiting for hip replacements and cataract removals, cancer survival rates worsening, mental healthcare in crisis, social care reform kicked into the long grass, and a costly, morale-sapping reorganisation on the way, we needed a fully resourced 10-year rescue plan for our NHS. I commend our amendment to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. At the beginning of this debate, I fear it was not quite clear which other amendments had been selected by Mr Speaker. I have now had an opportunity to look at my notes on my Order Paper. For the sake of clarity, let me tell the House that Mr Speaker has not selected amendment (e) in the name of Mr Bryant, as I predicted earlier. He has selected amendment (g) in the name of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and others. He has also selected amendment (i) in the name of the leader of the Scottish National party.
I remind hon. Members that, although their contributions should address the terms of these amendments, it is in order for them also to refer to other matters relevant to the Gracious Speech.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
I start by thanking the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) for his comradely advice, and I just correct the record because, thanks to his steadfast support for the Government’s action through the pandemic and the very grown-up approach he takes to these exchanges, Her Majesty the Queen was pleased to invite him to join the Privy Council, which we on the Government Benches welcome.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for describing the bond that has grown between us. It is true that, even while challenging each other from time to time in times of pandemic, sometimes relationships are strengthened in the heat of responding to something so serious. That is absolutely true. I think he is a wonderful man. I know that occasionally he has to criticise, because he has to please his Back Benchers, but I know he does not really mean it.
Throughout these great challenges and these difficult months, we have protected the NHS and protected and supported the amazing people who work in it, and we are determined to give the NHS all it needs as we emerge from this pandemic. The Queen’s Speech underlines that commitment, first, with a total focus on beating covid through our unprecedented vaccination programme, and then through an ambitious programme of support for our whole health and care system to tackle the backlogs caused by the pandemic, which the right hon. Gentleman rightly described, and a health and care Bill to set the NHS fair for the future—a Bill whose ideas and central propositions come from the NHS itself—alongside social care reforms to tackle injustices that have remained for far too long, public health reforms to learn the lessons of the pandemic and to promote the health of the nation, mental health reforms to bring that legislation into the 21st century and digital health reforms to harness all the opportunities that modern technology provides. That is our mission, a mission to ensure that, in support of all this, we also turn our nation into a life sciences superpower.
The last year has proved beyond measure the value of the NHS across Britain, the importance of social care and the strength of feeling that people rightly have for these cherished institutions. Our task in this Parliament is to help them further strengthen and build back better, and that is what this Queen’s Speech will allow us to do.
I turn first to the immediate task of tackling covid. With more than 70% of adults now having had a first dose and almost two fifths already double vaccinated, we have much to celebrate. Vaccination underpins our road map, which means we can now have pints in pubs and hugs in homes. Yet, as I updated the House on Monday, the race between the virus and the vaccine has got a whole lot closer. I can tell the House that 2,967 cases of covid-19 with the B1617.2 variant have now been identified. We are protecting the progress we have made and the progress that everybody has worked so hard to achieve, with the biggest surge in local resources of this pandemic so far. That means surging vaccines and testing. In the last week across Bolton and Blackburn with Darwen, we have given 26,094 jabs, as well as delivering 75,000 extra tests.
But this challenge is not restricted to Bolton and Blackburn. We have used the extensive biosecurity surveillance system that we have built and new techniques to identify the areas we are most concerned about, where we will now surge testing and vaccinations further. We, of course, look at the data on cases, variants and hospitalisations, all of which we publish, but we are now able to use further tools. Mobility data shows how often people travel from one area to another, and we look at that in deciding where the virus is likely to spread. We now analyse waste water in 70% of the country, and we can spot the virus and the variants in the water to identify communities where there is spread.
As a result of all that analysis, I can tell the House that we will now surge testing and vaccinations in Bedford, Burnley, Hounslow, Kirklees, Leicester and North Tyneside, and we are supporting the Scottish Government, who are taking similar action in Glasgow and Moray. In practice, this means that we are putting in place more testing and more testing sites, and we are making more vaccinations available to everyone who is eligible. We are not yet opening up vaccinations to those who are 35 and younger, because across the whole country, the message is crystal clear. This episode shows just how important it is that every single person who is vulnerable to covid-19 gets not just one but two doses, because the vaccine offers the best possible protection against this disease.
Turning to our programme for the future, we must learn from the success of this vaccine roll-out, which shows how we can deliver huge projects with huge flexibility at huge pace. We must apply these lessons to how we tackle the backlog, and I want to set out clearly to the House the sheer scale of the challenge left by the pandemic. I agree very much with the analysis that the right hon. Member for Leicester South set out in respect of the scale of the challenge.
We now have 4.7 million people in England waiting for care and more in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Before the pandemic, we had succeeded in getting the 12-month waiting list down from 18,700 in 2010 to just 1,600 in the months leading up to the pandemic. Now, 380,000 have waited more than a year for care, but these figures do not yet include the returning demand of those people who have a problem but have not yet come forward during the pandemic, often because they have been trying to reduce the burden on the NHS, but are now rightly regaining the confidence to approach the NHS. So the real waiting list is far larger than those figures, and as people re-present with problems that they might not have wanted to bother the NHS with in the past year, we will see the waiting lists go up.
We know that, during the pandemic, 6.9 million fewer patients were added to the waiting list for diagnosis and treatment. The scale of the pent-up demand that will come forward is unknowable, but to give the House a sense of the scale of the challenge, since the start of the pandemic, the NHS performed 70% fewer electives than in a normal year. Some of those will have been resolved without the need for hospital treatment, and that is fine, but some will return. We do not yet know how many will present themselves and add to the waiting lists, but we do know that the NHS needs to operate at a scale never seen before across the whole United Kingdom to clear the backlog, so we are working hard to support the NHS to accelerate the recovery of services.
Chris Bryant
The Secretary of State will know that people with traumatic brain injury might well have been treated because they have been in a car crash or something like that over the last year, but then the ongoing neurorehabilitation simply will not have been made available to them. On top of that, we have a new set of people who have neurocognitive problems because of covid. May I urge him to think of putting a single person in charge of the whole sphere of neurorehabilitation and brain injury, to try to get this back on course?
Matt Hancock
I will absolutely consider that. The hon. Gentleman raises one example of the sort of backlog that has not yet presented itself in many cases to the NHS, and I know that he met the Minister for Health recently to discuss how we can tackle this further.
James Cartlidge
The Secretary of State heard the intervention I made on the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth). Is he aware that, in January, Ipswich Hospital was able to more than double the number of intensive care unit beds it had available, from 11 to 25, precisely because it moved cancer patients to the Nuffield hospital in the independent sector? Does that not show the danger of ideologically ruling out the use of the independent sector, which immediately reduces the capacity of the NHS?
Matt Hancock
Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I thought that his exchanges with the right hon. Member for Leicester South were disappointing, because we know that the Opposition spokesman supports the use of the private sector in the NHS, because he was the guy behind the private finance initiative projects of the last Labour Government. Mr PFI there is a huge fan of the use of the private sector in the NHS, but he cannot admit it, because of the people sitting behind him, and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) sitting next to him, keeping watch over him from the hard left of the party.
Jonathan Ashworth
For goodness’ sake, I was not responsible for a single PFI contract. Actually, I remember that it was for the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, that the right hon. Member was the chief lickspittle and bag carrier in signing off PFI contracts when he was first appointed to the Treasury. He can go through all the Treasury documents and he can FOI it until the cows come home, and he will find that I was not involved in any PFI contracts when I worked in the Labour Government, but I was responsible for helping invest in the NHS, which brought waiting lists down to their lowest level ever.
Matt Hancock
Well, it did not actually, because after 2010 we then had to bring waiting lists down, and we brought them down. The 52-week waits came down to just 1,600 before the pandemic, and it is our task and our mission to make sure that we get them down once again. However, this will take time and it will take all the resources that are possible—yes, extra staff, and that is happening; yes, extra capital investment, and that is happening; and yes, extra diagnostics, and that is happening. We have to use all the capacity of everything that we can—north and south, revenue and capital, public and private. What people care about and what our constituents care about is whether they can get the problem fixed, and last year has demonstrated that without doubt. So on the Government side we will use everything in our power to support the NHS. It is only those on the other side of the House who have the ideological divisions, and that just demonstrates once again that we are the party of the NHS.
In March, we committed £7 billion for further funding for healthcare services, including £1 billion to address backlogs from the pandemic, and that has taken our additional funding for covid-19 to £92 billion. We are also helping the NHS to recover medical training, and today I can confirm to the House an additional £30 million for postgraduate medical training. The formula for beating this backlog is looking closely at the demand as we emerge from the pandemic, putting in the right resources to meet this demand and putting in place an ambitious programme of improvement in the NHS.
That brings me to the third thing I want to talk about, which is how we are going to build back better. The Queen’s Speech outlines improvement in almost every area of healthcare, applying vital lessons that we have learned from the pandemic, including from the successful vaccination programme, when the whole health and care system has worked as one in the face of challenge and adversity. The vaccination programme brought a jigsaw of academics, the private sector, volunteers, the NHS, civil servants and many more, and put this together, revealing a bold picture of what is possible in this country when we pull together. That is the spirit and the energy that will underpin our reforms, and all of them have a common thread, which is to improve the health of the nation, based on the principle that prevention is better than cure.
Turning to our health and care Bill, as outlined in Her Majesty’s most Gracious Speech, one of the lessons of the crisis is the importance of integrated working. We knew this before, but it has come right to the front of mind. For years, people in the NHS at all levels have called for stronger integration within the NHS, and between the NHS and others they work so closely with, such as local authorities. The Bill will allow for a more preventive, population health-based approach to how we spend NHS money, helping people to stay healthy in the first place, and that is at the core of our Bill.
The right hon. Member for Leicester South asked about the new integrated care systems. They will bring together decision making at a local level between the NHS and local authorities to ensure that decisions about local health can be taken as locally as possible. The Bill will tackle much of the bureaucracy that makes it harder to do the right thing and free up the system to innovate and embrace technology as a better platform to support staff and patient care.
Her Majesty also set out our commitment to reform adult social care, and we will bring forward proposals this year to give everyone who needs care the dignity and security they deserve. Throughout the pandemic, we have sought to protect the elderly and the most vulnerable, and this will remain our priority as we look to end the care lottery and ensure that people receive high-quality, joined-up care.
This country understands the importance of the NHS and social care, but I also think that there has never been a greater appreciation of the importance of public health. Never have the public been more engaged, and never have we learned quite so much in such a short space of time. We must capture the lessons of the pandemic on how we do public health in this country and put that together with the innovations of the last decade—in data, genomics, population health, science and research.
One of the lessons that we have had to learn quickly is that health security and health promotion each need a single-minded focus. The people who get up in the morning and think about how we increase healthy life expectancy must be different from the people focused on fighting novel pandemic threats. Each is important and each needs dedicated focus. We have split these functions into two purpose-built organisations so that we are better at both.
The new UK Health Security Agency will have a dedicated focus on responding to the current threats, planning for the next pandemic and scanning the horizon for new threats in good times as well as bad. Of course, pandemics do not respect administrative boundaries. The UKHSA’s role is specifically to promote and protect the security of the United Kingdom as a whole.
Next, the job of our new Office for Health Promotion will be to lead national efforts to improve and level up our health—addressing the causes of ill health, not just the symptoms, such as through our plans to tackle obesity and make healthier choices easier and more accessible, and through supporting our colleagues in primary and community care. General practice, after all, is at the forefront of all population health measures and GPs are the bedrock of the NHS. General practice will be central to our levelling up the health of the nation because we know, and they know, that prevention is better than cure. A greater proportion of our efforts will now be directed at preventing people from becoming patients in the first place.
All of that brings me to mental health reforms. To truly level up health and reduce health inequalities, we must level up every part of our health, including mental health. I am determined to see mental ill health treated on a par with physical ill health, and to ensure that support is in place for those struggling with their mental wellbeing. We have provided record levels of funding for mental health services, especially to meet the additional burdens of the pandemic, but we need a better legislative basis—a mental health Act fit for the 21st century.
We are modernising the Mental Health Act to improve services for the most serious mental illnesses and support people so that they can manage their own mental health. The new Act will tackle the disparities and iniquities of our system and improve how people with learning difficulties and autism are supported. Ultimately, it is going to be there for every single one of us if we need it.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I know that my right hon. Friend shares my passion for legislative reform of the Mental Health Act. We go through this process every 20 years or so. I was wondering whether he could unpack how this will go forward, bearing in mind the need to get the law right while delivering it very quickly so that patients get the benefits.
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend has enormous expertise and wisdom in this area. He is right to make the argument that we need to support everybody’s mental wellbeing, but that we also need a specific focus on very serious mental ill health, much of which has been, in many cases, exacerbated by the privations that have been necessary during the pandemic. He says that this is a process that happens once every 20 years, but it is almost 40 years since we had a new mental health Act. We want to do this with stakeholders on a consensual basis—I am very glad to hear the reiteration of cross-party support just now from the right hon. Member for Leicester South. Our goal is to bring forward a draft Bill in this Session and a Bill potentially in the next Session, so that we ensure it is legislated for during this Parliament. That is a timetable on which we have worked with the many experts who have informed the process, led by Sir Simon Wessley, of course, whose report sparked off this work. I look forward to working on that with him and the Minister with responsibility for mental health, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries).
Chris Bryant
I think the Secretary of State just said that we have not had a mental health Act for 40 years, but I remember sitting on the Public Bill Committee for the Mental Health Act 2007. I know that everybody is against lobbying, but my experience as a member of that Committee was that the lobbyists from the mental health charities, the British Medical Association and the pharmaceutical companies were absolutely invaluable in ensuring that we got the legislation right. Will he make sure that is available again this time?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I am absolutely happy to stress that point. This is a consensual process taking into account all the expertise from those who rightly want to influence. The hon. Gentleman almost made a joke about lobbying. The truth is that listening to people who have an expertise and an interest is absolutely critical to getting such a sensitive piece of legislation right. The legislation that this will replace was introduced in the early ’80s, so it is essentially 40 years old. There have been some updates, but there are still some extraordinarily antiquated things in our current mental health legislation. For instance, if someone does not declare then it is automatically assumed, if they are unmarried, that their father should take decisions on their behalf, rather than them choosing who might take those decisions—not their mother and not just one of their parents, but their father. That is just one example of the antiquated practices in this area that we need to address.
Finally, turning to our digital reforms, the pandemic has shown that one of the greatest allies we have in our battle for the nation’s health is data and technology. Digital health has truly come of age over the past year. There is no doubt about it: data saves lives. As we reshape health and social care, we will do it underpinned by a modern data platform, so we can get the most out of this powerful new technology. I am glad, again, that this is an area of cross-party consensus. Telemedicine has taken off. The NHS covid-19 app has been downloaded almost 24 million times and the wider NHS app, on which we can now demonstrate our vaccine status, was downloaded more times on Monday this week than on any previous day. If Members have not downloaded it yet, I recommend that they do. They can see their medical records and show somebody when you had the jab. NHSX committed to delivering the app by the ambitious schedule of 17 May, and it delivered. I am grateful to everybody who worked on this incredibly important project. The lesson of our data-driven vaccine roll-out must be applied everywhere. As citizens, we value the ability to see our data—after all, it is about us and it effectively belongs to us—and we want to see it used to drive better decisions, better research, better treatment and better support for colleagues on the frontline.
My view is that for years the health system has shied away from the modern use of data, and struggled on with paper forms, fax machines and clunky systems that do not talk to each other—but no longer. The pandemic has proved without doubt the incredible value to patients and clinicians alike of the modern use of data. Because of the gift of a universal NHS, we have the opportunity to have the best data-driven healthcare in the world, and I am determined that we seize it. Our health and care Bill and our new data strategy will drive a whole new approach to unleash that potential.
In addition to all those changes, we must, throughout, support all those who improve our health, including those in our life sciences and those who work in the NHS. Last week, I attended with colleagues a service to commemorate the life of Florence Nightingale. In his bidding, the Dean of Westminster reminded us that in Florence Nightingale, compassion and care had the power to deliver not just healing, but change. That must be our mission too: not just to heal, but to change. I am proud to be a member of a Government who deliver on our commitments. We delivered on our commitment to Brexit. We delivered on our commitment to protect the NHS. We are delivering on our commitment to vaccinate all. This Queen’s Speech is a commitment for healing and for change, for a United Kingdom that is stronger, healthier and more prosperous together, and I commend it to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
It might be helpful for the House to know that the initial time limit on Back-Bench speeches will be five minutes, and in that cohort of five-minute speeches we have two maiden speeches this afternoon. I can see the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) looking at her notes, and I am sorry to have to say that when we come to her and those after her on the list, the time limit will reduce to three minutes. [Interruption.] She is taking it very well. [Laughter.] Now we go by video link to Dr Philippa Whitford.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
I rise to speak to amendment (i), which stands in my name and those of my colleagues. At the start of my speech, I wish to pay tribute to all health and social care staff, right across the UK, for everything they have done this past difficult year. Although there are real concerns about the rise of the Indian variant in multiple areas, we are all hoping that we can continue, slowly, to open up our society. Our attention is therefore now turning to patients who have been waiting many months for treatment or who have not yet even come forward with their health concerns. All four health services are working on recovery from the covid pandemic, and the Scottish Government have put in place their 100-day plan, to utilise some of the innovations used in the past year to increase the diagnosis and treatment of both elective and cancer patients.
However, the wellbeing and recovery of NHS staff must also be put front and centre, otherwise we will simply lose staff who are worn out. Especially after Brexit, the UK already faces workforce challenges. All NHS staff have worked above and beyond over the past 15 months, and the public have shown how much they value them, by clapping on their doorsteps and sticking rainbows in their windows. It has to be said that the derisory 1% pay rise for NHS staff in England is not exactly making them feel valued; you can’t spend claps in the supermarket. For NHS staff, this feels like a kick in the teeth. Many feel disrespected and are considering whether they will stay in their profession.
By contrast, in Scotland, where our NHS staff were already higher paid, they will get a 4% pay rise, the largest since devolution. Our nurses still get a bursary of £10,000 a year and do not pay tuition fees. That means that the Scottish Government invest £20,000 a year in every student nurse, so that they do not start their careers £50,000 to £60,000 in debt. NHS staff in Scotland have faced the same horrendous pandemic year, but we are trying to say thank you with a simple bonus of £500 and by focusing on their wellbeing and support services during recovery. The four national health services across the UK are not about hospitals or machines; rather, this is about the NHS staff who diagnose us, treat us and care for us, and now it is vital that we look after them so that they can recover.
There can be no NHS recovery without allowing staff to recover. It is only by supporting staff that they in turn will be able to look after patients and contribute to the huge task of treating those who have had to wait because of the pandemic and those who come forward now. Clearing the backlog of cases will take many months, but it will also require significant investment, yet the additional covid funding in England has already started to be removed since April. Although English trust debts were wiped last year and the NHS was told it could have whatever funding it needed, analysis by the King’s Fund shows that the core health and social care budget actually fell by £1.7 billion.
The main piece of health-related legislation in the Queen’s Speech is the health and care Bill, which, less than 10 years on, will repeal some aspects of the Tory-Lib Dem Health and Social Care Act 2012. It was that policy that brought me into politics. I had been following the proposals since 2011, in sheer disbelief that anyone could think that breaking up the NHS in England would somehow make it work better. Although I and others will be glad to see the back of section 75, which forced GPs to put services out to tender, this Government’s management of the covid response does not suggest that they are any less keen on outsourcing.
Exactly how commissioning will work is not at all clear, and that is causing concern for key community services such as dentistry and community pharmacies. Although the Secretary of State rightly highlights that prevention is better than cure, public health in England was decimated by funding cuts and reorganisation before covid hit and even went through further upheaval at the height of the pandemic. With regard to the White Paper and the Bill, the devil will be in the detail. Personally, I am concerned about how the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is reversing devolution, and particularly about how the procurement Bill might be used to undermine our integrated public NHS in Scotland.
Overall, it is easier to talk about what is not in the Queen’s Speech than what is. The most glaring omission is the long awaited social care Bill. That is in keeping with its complete absence from the Budget in March, but it is unforgivable. Not only has the pandemic highlighted the vulnerability of the social care sector, particularly those living in care homes; it also brought home to all of us the important role played by care staff, whether in care homes or looking after people in their own homes.
During the 2019 election, the Prime Minister claimed to have his fully prepared social care plan, but maybe he was mixing it up with the oven-ready Brexit deal that he was boasting about at the same time. Far from being ready to go, it has yet to see the light of day. Various Ministers have recently tried to blame delays on Opposition parties taking too long to sign up to a cross-party approach. Well, I have certainly never seen it, and I note that the shadow Care Minister, the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), has said the same. I do not know why the Government are finding it so difficult to make contact with us; our email addresses are all in the parliamentary directory.
We have not just been waiting since December 2019 or even last July; a Green Paper on social care has been promised since 2017—four years ago. During that time, social care in England has been allowed to wither on the vine, with the gap between what is funded and what is needed growing to between £8 billion and £10 billion. The Scottish Government spend 43% more per head on social care, which allows us to provide free personal care, letting people stay in their own homes for longer, which is something that all of us would prefer.
After the experience of the covid pandemic last year, the Scottish Government commissioned the independent Feeley review, which has proposed a human rights approach to social care—valuing and enabling participation in society, rather than always looking on care support as a burden. The report outlines the route to establishing a national care service, with Scotland-wide service standards, staff training, and national terms and conditions.
Another key element missing from this Queen’s Speech is any real detail about rebuilding a better society and economy than the one that was driving poverty and inequality before the pandemic brought life to a shuddering halt. We all know that we need a different economic model ahead of 2030 if we are not to burn or consume the planet. With the added economic damage of Brexit, it will take the investment of time, energy and money to recover from covid. We therefore have a choice about what kind of society we want to rebuild: one that exacerbates inequality or one that focuses on the wellbeing of everyone who lives here.
Wellbeing is not about healthcare or the NHS. It is much more than an absence of physical or mental illness. It comes from having a decent start in life, a warm and safe home, enough to eat, and fair opportunities at school and beyond. Scotland already has a broad range of wellbeing policies for all ages, from the baby box to welcome newborns, through to free personal care to support our older or vulnerable citizens. The Scottish Government are founders of the Wellbeing Economy Governments group with Iceland and New Zealand. They have already committed to a wellbeing and sustainability Act to ensure that every level of Government and every public body in Scotland puts the health and wellbeing of local people at the heart of all policy decisions.
We have seen the impact of covid on those in low-paid and insecure jobs, who, without decent sick pay, simply could not afford to isolate when they tested positive. Failing to properly support people to isolate has been one of the biggest mistakes in the UK Government’s covid response, yet we see no evidence that any lessons have been learned and no proposals for change. Where is the employment Bill that we heard about? Where is the plan to tackle child poverty, which has been driven up right across the UK since the first welfare cuts in 2012 and exacerbated by the benefit freeze and heartless policies such as the two-child limit and the rape clause?
There is nothing in this Queen’s Speech about genuine levelling up for the most vulnerable. That is just a slogan for blatant pork barrel politics. In Scotland, the Government pay the bedroom tax and are providing the Scottish child payment to help fight to child poverty, but more people are beginning to recognise the effort and money that is spent just trying to mitigate the policies of Tory-led Governments that repeatedly put the heaviest burden on the weakest shoulders.
Poverty is the biggest driver of ill health, and a decade of Tory austerity has been the biggest driver of poverty, but the Chancellor has already stated that the uplift to universal credit will be cut in September, signalling the start of yet another decade of Tory austerity. The people of Scotland certainly aspire to something better—a fairer society that looks out for those who need support. As we rebuild from the pandemic, we need to move away from an economy based on relentless growth in consumption to a more sustainable one that values people rather than just GDP.
That demonstrates the clear blue water between the UK Government’s plan for yet more austerity, poverty and inequality, and our vision for a fairer, healthier and more sustainable independent Scotland. The people of Scotland have the right to choose between those two visions. In Scotland, more people are beginning to recognise that we need the full powers of a normal independent country to be able to direct our recovery from covid and build the better country we want to live in and pass on to our children and grandchildren.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
Let me start by thanking the NHS and care staff who looked after my constituents in South West Surrey so magnificently in the last year. Every resident of Farnham, Godalming and Haslemere is in their debt and incredibly grateful. As this is Dementia Action Week, I also particularly thank those who looked after people living with dementia, whether care home staff, home visitors or family members.
It is to the quality and safety of NHS care in normal times, as well as during pandemics, that I shall address my comments this afternoon. I will never forget the first members of the public who came to see me when I was Health Secretary to talk about issues of quality and safety. They were a young couple from Devon called Scott and Sue Morrish, who lost their three-year-old son Sam to sepsis. An independent inquiry ultimately decided, in two investigations, that every single NHS organisation that they had dealt with—the GP surgery, the out-of-hours service, NHS Direct, as was, and the hospital—had failed Sam in his care.
Scott and Sue are a modest couple—the last people to kick up a fuss—but they said that when they asked politely for a meeting to discuss Sam’s care a few months after his death, the shutters came down and no one was prepared to talk to them; it was like talking to a brick wall. Ultimately, it took them six years to uncover the truth of what happened to Sam. We should never, ever put a grieving family through that kind of agony.
That is why I focused on safety and quality. It is why I introduced Ofsted-style ratings for hospitals, care homes and GP surgeries, which I think have had some success. Indeed, I am happy to say that they have had particular success at the hospital where Sam was treated, where there has been a big change in culture. However, that is the reason why, with these new reforms, it is absolutely essential that safety and quality is at the heart of what we ask from the new integrated care systems. It is vital that they are outward-looking to the needs of patients and not upward-looking to the requirements of NHS bureaucracy. I am delighted that the Secretary of State wrote to me yesterday confirming that safety and quality would be one of the core requirements being asked of the new integrated care systems. On that basis, I will support the reforms and the Bill, as, I believe, will the Health and Social Care Committee, based on the report that we published last week.
However, there were two omissions from the White Paper that I do need to mention. The first—social care—has been mentioned this afternoon, and I know that the Secretary of State will say that reforms are on the way. I just want to say to him, as the only person here this afternoon who has done his job, that I had four winter crises in a row because we tried to fix the problems of the NHS without trying to fix the problems of the social care system at the same time. If we fix one system and not the other, the social care system will continue to export its most vulnerable patients into hospitals, where they are much more expensive to treat and it is much worse for them, particularly people with dementia. I know that money is a big issue—this is a very expensive thing—but if the NHS really is a priority for this Government, the social care system has to be as well, and I urge him Godspeed and all strength in the battles ahead to secure the reforms for social care that are so urgently needed.
The second omission is around workforce reform. We have a NHS where there are gaps in nearly every medical specialty, as well as in nursing. I was proud to set up five new medical schools and that had a big increase in the number of doctors, nurses and midwives we trained, but even with 50,000 more nurses and 6,000 additional doctors, we need a major overhaul of workforce planning. The obvious reform is to give Health Education England the statutory duty to publish annually long-term workforce requirements to act as a kind of Office for Budget Responsibility-style discipline on the Government to train enough doctors and nurses. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider that.
In conclusion, integration of care—offering joined-up care to patients—is a vital objective, but without enough doctors and nurses to do it, and without a social care system that is able to integrate with the NHS, the worthy objectives that we all have for these reforms will not meet the aspirations that people on both sides of the House rightly have.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Alison was 68 when she fell down a long flight of stairs and hit her head. She was bright as a button until that moment but the damage has left her feeling befuddled and trapped.
Heather was seven when she was hit by a car as she turned a corner on her scooter. Thank goodness she survived, but she suffered a terrible blow to the head. She is now 13 and she still struggles to concentrate.
Gareth played rugby from the age of 10 until he retired as a professional rugby player in his 30s. He took blow after blow to his head in the game and was repeatedly concussed, and kept on going back on the pitch. He now suffers from panic attacks, depression and anxiety. He thinks of taking his life every day. He fears dementia.
Rhys is in his 80s. He gets terribly confused and forgetful. He half-remembers that he has been diagnosed with dementia, but sometimes, paranoia sets in and he gets very angry with those who are looking after him.
Kate is 19. She was in a car with three friends when another car suddenly appeared on the wrong side of the road and crashed into them. The ensuing crash left her paralysed from the neck down and with significant cognitive impairment. She feels completely trapped.
Mark is now 19 and lives on his own. He finds it difficult to control his emotions and perform normal executive functions such as turning up on time. His doctor thinks that that is because the boiler in his childhood home was pumping out carbon monoxide for years without being spotted.
Richard and Jane adopted Kia when she was three months old. She suffers from foetal alcohol spectrum disorder.
Nick is a former fusilier in the British Army. He was caught by an improvised explosive device in Iraq, but because there was no physical sign of an injury, he was never checked for brain damage. He, too, suffers from depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts.
Faisal had covid last year. He has never shaken it off. He suffers from terrible fatigue and brain fog all the time.
Maria is 42. She was in a horrible abusive relationship for a decade, but never dared go to the doctor when her partner smashed her head repeatedly against the kitchen worktop. She suffers from terrible paranoia and has just been sent to prison for possession of illegal drugs.
These people—I have changed their names—and the 1.4 million people like them really need legislation now. A brain injury Act would do five things. First, it would guarantee neuro-rehabilitation for all, bridging the gap between acute services and community services, which so many people miss out on. Secondly, it would put proper protocols in place on concussion in all sports, both professional and grassroots, and make them identical so that children who play more than one sport do not end up terribly confused. Thirdly, it would help to prevent brain injury by legislating on carbon monoxide poisoning and employers’ duties towards their staff, including in the British armed forces.
Fourthly, the Act would ensure research into the causes, effects and treatment of brain injury. It seems remarkable to me, as the child of an alcoholic mother and as somebody who has seen various forms of brain injury in my own family, that we still do not really understand how the mind sits inside the brain. We really need to invest much more dramatically in research in that area.
Finally, the Act would require that all public bodies, including schools, the police, Department for Work and Pensions assessors and the courts, be trained in brain injury. One thing that repeatedly comes back to me is that people know that their injury is not visible to everybody else. The strength of the internal agony that they might be suffering changes from day to day and from week to week. To banish some of the taboos in this field, it is essential that, when they deal with somebody in our public services, they know that that person fully understands. Amendment (e) has not been selected today—I never thought it would be—but I hope that one day we will have proper legislation in the field.
I end by paying enormous tribute to the people in the Rhondda who have been doing the mass vaccination programme. I have seen the work that they do every Friday afternoon when lots of people have not turned up: they are so desperate not to waste a single dose that they ring anybody they know to get them in. That is an enormous tribute to them.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).
Like other Members across the House, I welcome the performance and incredible dedication of NHS and social care staff throughout the pandemic. In the specific context of the Queen’s Speech, I also welcome the Government’s commitment to greater integration. The NHS is a great institution full of massively dedicated people, but my observation over the years has been that it is also a series of individual institutions, all of which are tenacious in the defence of their own interests. GPs are wary of hospital trusts, community services have a separate set of interests, and so do ambulance trusts and others such as pharmacies, which play a vital role but too often do not feel engaged enough.
The integration that the promised health and care Bill seeks to bring about is exactly the right solution, in a number of fields. Technology is clearly key—not just technology at the cutting edge of diagnostics or life sciences, but straightforward stuff so that systems talk to one another and patients do not have to repeat the same set of symptoms to doctor after doctor in different settings because their records have not been passed on. That kind of frustration has no place in the 21st century and should disappear.
The biggest prize of all is proper integration between the health and social care systems. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is absolutely right to focus on that in one of his White Papers, and I welcome that as well, but with two caveats. This must not be a takeover by the NHS of social care. The White Paper suggests integrated care systems, which are fine, but I slightly raise my eyebrows at the proposed dual system where the NHS effectively gets its integrated decision in first and then shares it with the social care system. It is vital that social care has a voice at the table where the decisions are taken.
My second caveat is that the social care voice must be properly representative. Too often when people say, “We have consulted social care”, what they mean is, “We have consulted the local authorities.” Clearly, local authorities have a key role to play in this, but they are not the whole social care sector. There are third sector providers and private sector providers, and their voices need to be heard as well. There are 1.6 million workers in the sector—it is larger than the NHS—and their voices need to be heard.
Of course, all this will mean something only if we have a stable and sustainable solution to the social care conundrum that has defined Governments since the 1990s. On that, I want to make four quick points. The first is on funding, which lies at the root of many of the frustrations. It must come out of national, not local, taxation, and it must certainly involve extra state spending, possibly through a hypothecated national insurance increase for some people. It should also involve extra personal savings from those who can afford it, perhaps based on a small percentage of total assets rather than a flat figure for the whole country.
We need to solve the question of funding to solve this, but as well as that, we need a proper workforce plan, not just with better pay, though that is needed, but with a career structure, so that a social care career can be seen as the equivalent of a career in the NHS. The great value of social care workers should be reflected not just inside the system but in wider Government policy, including, for example, in the immigration system.
We also need changes to our attitude to housing and planning. We need to build homes so that people can live in their own homes for longer than they too often can now. Everyone prefers to live in their own home. And, fourthly, to assist that, we must do much better with technology. We need to use the technologies that are now available—it is not cutting-edge technology—to allow people to spend much more of their life in their own home, living a life in comfort before they may have to go into residential care. That is not only better for people, it is much cheaper for the taxpayer and for the families.
All these reforms are necessary if we are going to have a long-term, stable system. Along with my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), I have called for a 10-year plan for social care to go along with the long-term NHS plan. That is absolutely essential. It is also essential that this is the year in which we start down this path. We have talked for too long about social care: we need to act.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We are in for a treat now: one of two maiden speeches today. I remind everybody that, by convention, there will be no interventions. We are not putting the clock on the maiden speeches, but both Members have been told about the time constraints, so good luck! To make her maiden speech, I call Anum Qaisar-Javed.
Anum Qaisar-Javed (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It gives me immense pleasure to be making my maiden speech during an incredibly important debate on the NHS, and it is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green). I thank my constituents for voting SNP—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]—and for bestowing upon me the greatest honour of my life by electing me as the Member of Parliament for Airdrie and Shotts. I want to take this opportunity to send a strong message to my constituents: I am here for you. I pledge to stand strong and work tirelessly for you, your families and our communities across the constituency.
I would also like to use my maiden speech to pay tribute to my predecessor, Neil Gray, and to congratulate him on his election to the Scottish Parliament. In this place, Neil showed himself to be a fierce advocate for his constituents and for social justice. I very much look forward to working with him in the constituency we now share and delivering for our community from Westminster and Holyrood.
I must confess, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not altogether unfamiliar with this place, having had the privilege of working for my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) some years ago. I subsequently followed my other passion and retrained as a teacher. Teaching modern studies and politics has been a delight. In fact, it was only recently that I showed my high school democracy pupils video clips of this very Chamber. It was suggested to me by a colleague that I would miss my school pupils, because no matter how rowdy they were, the House of Commons was much worse. I am pleased to say, however, that my experience so far has not confirmed that.
Some say Scotland is cold, but in Airdrie and Shotts, you will feel a warmth you will remember. The people are friendly, welcoming, honest and thoroughly decent. At the beating heart of the constituency are hard-working activists—people like Sharon Craig, who has continually championed her local community in Craigneuk, and Sarah Quinn, whose dedication knows no bounds and is making young voices heard via the Fortissat Youth Forum.
Upon entering this place, I did in fact ask for an internal map—there are lots of corridors. I was told that the best way to navigate myself through the building was to simply get lost. I must take this opportunity to thank all the House staff, who have been very kind and welcoming, even though they were telling me to get lost—in particular Kate Emms, who has been a source of guidance, and Doorkeeper Sarah Binstead-Chapman, who found me wandering while I was wishing there was a parliamentary sat-nav app.
It is fitting to make my maiden speech while we discuss the NHS. It was in fact a campaign by my SNP predecessor that kept the Monklands hospital in Airdrie. I have witnessed at first hand the sacrifice and dedication of our NHS staff, not least by my husband, Dr Usman Javed, who is sitting in the Gallery today. I take this opportunity to thank all the healthcare workers in my constituency and beyond for the sacrifices they have made this last year.
I wish to make one more plea that goes slightly beyond the NHS. The NHS would have collapsed without overseas staffing and immigrants who have made valuable contributions to this country. This may not be popular in some circles, but the points-based immigration system championed by the Government is deeply flawed. Were it in use when my father planned to come to this island, he would have been blocked and this country would have been deprived of one Member of Parliament, one doctor and one medical student—myself and my siblings. That is one of the reasons why Scotland needs independence, so that policies best suited for our people’s needs are developed and delivered by those in Scotland.
So I end my maiden speech with a plea: please let Scotland be free. In the short term, devolve immigration so that we can set policies that are reflective of the needs of Scotland.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Congratulations. My maiden speech was shocking. [Interruption.] A bit like my other speeches, I know. But yours was accomplished, so many congratulations.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
May I start by saying what a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Anum Qaisar-Javed)? It was an outstanding maiden speech, and we congratulate her on her success and wish her every success during her time in this House. We wish our best to her predecessor, whom many of us enjoyed chatting to on many different subjects.
I would like to begin my short speech by paying tribute to and thanking the local NHS teams in west Wales, particularly Pembrokeshire, for their outstanding work over the past 12 months, particularly the teams working at Withybush Hospital in Haverfordwest. The national health service occupies a unique place in our national life. It is an institution—more correctly, it is an idea—that fosters national unity in our society. It is an idea that is wrapped in a fair degree of mythology, and one of the key myths about the NHS today is that we have a single national health service. The truth is that we do not have a single NHS, not in a legal sense nor, increasingly, in a practical sense. If someone logs on to www.nhs.uk they will find a website with no information about any UK-wide health services, and no signposting for residents who live in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland—there is precious little of the UK about it at all. Increasingly, the NHS across the UK is about a different set of institutions, a different set of published core values, different policies, different approaches and different governance arrangements.
When I speak to staff in the NHS I get the sense that they genuinely believe that they are working for one integrated, unified organisation and movement, but increasingly the truth is that that is not the case. The point that I want to make is not an active devolution point at all—that is not where I am coming from—but I believe that the experience of the past 12 months has reinforced the importance of better co-ordination and communication, as well as the importance of data. An early argument made by proponents of devolution was that it would enable different policies to be tested in different parts of the United Kingdom, and there may be some truth in that. We should also recognise, however, that we have no meaningful way of judging those different policies—there is no set of UK-wide health metrics. The Nuffield Foundation and the Health Foundation both tried in the past to do studies looking at comparative data on different health services in different parts of the UK, but doing so has become more difficult given the increasing divergence that is under way.
We do not have meaningful debates about the performance of health systems in different parts of the UK, and the debate by Members from different parts of the UK is akin to cheerleading for their party if it is in power in their part of the United Kingdom. I thought the contribution from the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who is usually very good, characterised that. She seemed to be saying, “The NHS in Scotland is much better than anywhere else,” without any real evidence or information to back that up.
There are things that can be done to strengthen the NHS and create a more unified service without undermining the devolution settlement. I believe that we can strengthen the data sharing protocols between different parts of the system across the UK. The Secretary of State himself spoke about the importance of data. “Data saves lives,” he said. Well, we need to strengthen the way in which the NHS can communicate data between different parts of the UK. We need to improve the way we collect and publish truly comparative data across the UK. I will go even further: I would introduce a more unified inspection regime across the UK. I believe that we should develop stronger, UK-wide health standards so that it should not matter where someone is in the UK—they should have the same right to basic standards of healthcare, whether that relates to cancer care, bereavement care or child and adolescent mental health services. I do not believe that developing a more unified UK approach undermines devolution one bit.
When it comes to learning from the pandemic, I strongly welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to a public inquiry, which must not tiptoe around the issue of the four-nations approach to the pandemic. This morning, the National Audit Office published a report about its initial learnings from the Government response to the pandemic, and talked about a mixture of devolved competencies and UK-wide competencies, but not once did it mention devolved government. If we are truly to have a meaningful inquiry we need to meet that challenge head-on and have a genuine UK-wide debate.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) [V]
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this vital debate on the NHS and social care.
I want to speak about social care, which is in the midst of a severe crisis. Tragically, 40,000 older people have died in care homes since the beginning of the pandemic. In response to this tragedy, only one sentence of the Queen’s Speech last week was afforded to fixing the care system. In the memory of those people, the Government must put in place a proper social care system that will prevent such an injustice from ever taking place again. Instead, another year goes by where the Prime Minister has nothing to say to the hundreds of thousands of older people neglected by a broken system that still denies them the care that they so desperately need. This Government have been in power for 11 years and have done nothing to act on the matter.
Over the past 20 years, there have been at least 12 Government reviews, royal commissions, consultations, and Green and White Papers, yet still we have no change. During this time, Germany, Austria, France and Japan have all solved the issue. Even the Scottish Government, under a Labour Administration, were able to institute free personal care. This Government have dodged the issue for 11 years to the detriment of the 400,000 older people who go without the care they need. This is a failure of leadership, but it is also a collective failure of our political class to solve one of the defining issues of our time by ensuring that the older generation, after a long life of hard work and contribution to our society, are afforded the dignity that they deserve in older age.
It cannot be right that more than 10% of older people spend virtually all of their life savings on care. When the Prime Minister came to office, he committed to
“fix the crisis in social care once and for all.”
Now, nearly two years on, he needs to do something to fix this problem once and for all.
When it comes to who needs access to care, it is often smokers, so we need to commit to support reduced-risk products as the best way to help people move off cigarettes. We cannot let those in deprived areas continue to suffer from further smoking-led health inequalities. We must establish two distinct categories of regulation to differentiate between the most harmful tobacco products, and the reduced risk products such as vapes and “heat not burn” cigarettes. I am deeply concerned that public health advice is not getting to my constituents. Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities must have access to the right information and advice to quit cigarettes or to move to less harmful alternatives—that could prove to be a distinct success.
As a result of these pressures, we see more and more care homes close every year, with fewer people able to find the beds they need. I urge the Secretary of State on behalf of the thousands who need help today to take two parallel courses of action. First, I urge the Government to immediately commence cross-party discussions in good faith to create consensus, not over the problems, but to find solutions. Over the past half century, at every turn, politicisation has disturbed what window of opportunity we have had available, and the adversarial nature of our politics has not solved this vital problem.
Secondly, the Government must have faith in local government, and give councils the tools and resources to build and then run a cohesive system of social care. Local authorities have performed admirably during covid-19, and have shown that they are truly capable of running such a system. We should take the lessons learned over the past 14 months and put them into action. Local government knows how to run programmes; the Government should give them the resources to do it. Acting now is not a political white flag. It is not compromise; it is showing decisive leadership. It is weak to leave this issue unaddressed. Strength is acting to save lives, and the dignity of everyone forced into the arms of social care. The Prime Minister is—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am sorry, Virendra; you have just run out of time. I do apologise. No offence is intended.
I call Robin Millar to make his maiden speech.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
It is a privilege to rise and speak in this debate, and indeed a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma). I must say it has been a particular pleasure, too, to listen to speeches in this Chamber for the past 17 months, and I am humbled by the eloquence, the learning, the quick humour and concerns that hon. Members across the House bring to debates such as these.
My predecessor, Guto Bebb, was a man who followed his principles. As a Back Bencher, his campaign on interest rate swaps led to 11 bully banks paying out more than £1.5 billion in settlements to more than 15,000 businesses. He went on to become a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales and then Minister for Defence Procurement. In short, he was a three-time winner of general election campaigns, a two-time Minister of State and an effective advocate for the exploited. He earned the respect of colleagues and opponents and secured the affections of his office team. Those are considerable accomplishments, and they have guided me since entering the House, so it is a pleasure to recognise them with these few words today.
I was born and raised in north-west Wales. That is where I learned the importance of family, where I found my Christian faith, and where lifelong values were formed. It is also where I had my first political experience, as a six-year-old in 1974, campaigning for the late Wyn Roberts MP, more recently Lord Roberts of Conwy. Even now I remember his campaign cry of “Win with Wyn”, and I still proudly wear the campaign rosette he gave me to thank me for my decisive contribution to his successful re-election campaign that year.
In Wales we have a word, cynefin, which loosely translates as habitat; but it means much more than that, and carries a sense of belonging and being in the right place. So, although I left family and home for education, a career and for love, it was perhaps inevitable that I should return to Wales and end up in politics. To be sent to Westminster by the people of Aberconwy is a very special personal honour and a great privilege, and I will do all I can to repay the trust and the confidence they have placed in me.
For centuries the beauty of Aberconwy, its heritage and culture have drawn visitors from around the world, including many hon. Members from this House. Many who have come have stayed, and the houses they have built tell a fascinating story of ambition and influence, dispute and resolution. The Victorians enjoyed our seaside towns and villages so much that their houses line the promenades from Llanfairfechan to Llandudno. The Groes Inn on the shoulder of the Conwy valley is the oldest licensed pub in Wales, and has been a place of rest and refreshment for weary travellers since 1573.
Each of the castles of Aberconwy, along the Conwy valley—Deganwy, Conwy itself, Gwydir and Dolwyddelan —offer different perspectives on our rich history of English kings and Welsh princes in their mountain passes. Further up the valley and deep into Snowdonia—or Eryri, as we call it—is Tŷ Mawr, the house of Bishop William Morgan. His translation of the Bible into Welsh not only saved the Welsh language but changed the history of Wales, and it serves as a testament to the relevance of timeless truths to us today in this place.
These are rich seams, and points that I will return to another day, but the subject of today’s debate is the Health and Care Bill and Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech. The UK has a growing and ageing population. Around 18% are over 65 years old, but in Aberconwy that figure is closer to 27%. While there is no cure for old age yet, the challenge that we face is to reduce the burden of care and help ensure longer, better lives. So I support the Prime Minister’s aim to give every older person the dignity and security they deserve. On this one point I will make a simple observation.
This UK Government ensured that residents in all parts of the UK could benefit from the furlough scheme and receive financial relief at a time of crisis; this UK Government ensured that residents in all parts of the UK would benefit from a world-leading and lifesaving vaccination programme; and this UK Government can use the Health and Care Bill to ensure that residents in all parts of the UK will have access to consistent minimum standards of healthcare.
While residents of Aberconwy in north Wales are served by the gifted and hard-working professionals of Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, it was in special measures for six years until just a few months ago. Workers there have coped superbly with the pandemic response and are delivering hundreds of thousands of vaccines, yet some 6% of residents in north Wales have been on a waiting list for treatment for over a year. These are UK residents, they need the support of their UK Government, and this Bill, surely, is an opportunity for us to enable that support.
That is just one of the challenges we face in Aberconwy. We must build back a balanced economy, improve our road, rail and telecommunications links, develop green energy schemes, tackle flooding, and more. But whether on climate change, public service finance, social care, national security, our economy or international trade, these challenges are best faced together. I believe that our United Kingdom is the best response to the global challenges we face today. I do not underestimate the difficulty of building solutions across political parties and Parliaments, but we must strengthen the ties that bind us to best serve those we are here to represent.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Congratulations, Robin, and thank you for the Welsh lesson on “cynefin”. I used to see it outside houses in Swansea and always wondered what it meant, so now I know.
We are now going to a three-minute limit on speeches. I call Munira Wilson.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
This Government, with their 80-seat majority, are in an enviable position. They could put forward an ambitious and visionary plan to improve the country’s health and wellbeing and put social care at the forefront of their agenda. Yet here we are, following the biggest health crisis in 100 years, at a watershed moment, and the Queen’s Speech presents us with a Government who prioritise unnecessary and discriminatory legislation to introduce voter ID over ensuring that people can get the care that they need and over ensuring that we have a plan to train the next generation of doctors and nurses whom we will all rely on. What a waste of a precious opportunity of a mandate to bring about transformational change to the quality of British citizens’ lives.
Just nine words in the Queen’s Speech were devoted to social care, despite the Prime Minister’s promise on the steps of Downing Street 22 months ago to
“fix the crisis in social care once and for all”,
and there is still nothing on unpaid carers. Instead, reform keeps being kicked into the long grass for this overlooked and critically important sector. Although it is welcome that the health and care Bill seeks to improve integration between health and social care, it does not address the fundamental issues facing our care system in terms of structure, workforce and funding—problems that were highlighted so tragically through the pandemic. Ministers need urgently to commit to cross-party talks. They have a clear choice: to leave a lasting legacy or be responsible for an abject moral and political failure on one of the biggest public policy challenges that this country faces.
If the Prime Minister really wants us to believe that the NHS is safe in Conservative hands and that he genuinely cares about social care, then we need urgent action to ensure that we have enough doctors, nurses, carers, physios and other healthcare professionals both in the short and the long term. In 2019, there were about 100,000 full-time-equivalent vacancies in the NHS, and after a gruelling year, as we saw only yesterday with the nurse who treated the Prime Minister when he was in intensive care, many are needed. They are burnt-out, stressed and fed up of their good will being taken for granted.
With record waiting lists for both physical and mental health treatment, we clearly need some short-term solutions, but we must not shirk the long-term challenges. These shortages predate the pandemic. The Liberal Democrats support calls from the Health and Social Care Committee for a transparent and independent annual workforce report, with requirements for future staffing that cover the next five, 10 and 20 years and regular updates to Parliament on progress and resourcing. I implore the Minister to think big and not to squander this unique opportunity to bring about lasting, positive and long-term change in our health and care services and to improve the wellbeing of the British people.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) and the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Anum Qaisar-Javed) on their excellent maiden speeches. Whether it takes 17 months or less than seven days to make a maiden speech, we have seen two politicians on both sides of the Chamber who have come to this place to represent their local constituencies and get things done and who are passionate about really making a difference; I am sure that they will both do that in their respective roles.
It is a pleasure to speak in today’s debate on the NHS. What our NHS has done over the last year is nothing short of remarkable. In Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, our NHS staff have risen to the enormous challenge that they faced with this global pandemic, and they have responded in such a magnificent way.
Because time is short, I want to focus on my local area of Moray. Moray is one of two local council areas in Scotland that, sadly, did not see an easing of restrictions in the last week. While the rest of mainland Scotland moved from level 3 to level 2, and the islands thankfully moved to level 1, Moray and Glasgow remained in level 3. I am very optimistic that, at the end of this week, Moray will come out of those restrictions. I would say to anyone watching that, hopefully towards the end of this week, Moray will once again be open for business, and I know that our tourism and hospitality sector is ready to welcome people back to our wonderful area. We are only in such a positive position because of the response from our local NHS staff.
One of the keys to getting our spike in cases down has been more testing, rapid testing and an increase in vaccinations. I went along to the Fiona Elcock vaccination centre in Elgin on Sunday and was amazed by the professionalism of the staff and how they have converted a former Topps Tiles shop into a vaccination centre that is even allowing people without appointments to walk up and get a vaccination. We now have 85% of our population in Moray vaccinated with their first dose in response to the spike in cases, and 20% of those have been vaccinated in the last few weeks. That is down to the hard work of Alison Smart and her team in turning that derelict retail unit into a vaccination centre.
Every single member of NHS staff, the Elgin Rotary Club team who are volunteering and everyone involved in that operation have done an outstanding job. As I walked out, Edith Campbell asked me whether there was any way that I could highlight the great work they were doing, and I thought, “Yes, I can.” So today in the House of Commons, I thank Edith, Alison and everyone at the Fiona Elcock centre for what they are doing to get Moray back on track. That is just one example of how our NHS has gone above and beyond to get us out of this crisis.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
For a few glorious moments at the start of the debate, I thought that I might have five minutes, but this will be the abbreviated version of my speech.
First, I want to touch on social care. Many Members have mentioned the value and importance of social care in this pandemic, which has really brought out the value of the people who provide social care and the importance of doing so. It is disappointing, therefore, to see no concrete plans being brought forward. We need a plan for social care that looks at not only caps on care costs but properly resourcing and valuing social care workers and giving them parity of esteem with NHS staff. I would also like to mention the role of unpaid carers, who have done so much to support people through this pandemic.
Secondly, I would like to look at the NHS and say a big thank you to all its staff. They deserve so much more than the 1% that the Government are suggesting is appropriate. We have seen a tremendous response from the NHS, but we know that there is a great deal of catch-up to do to ensure that people are followed up. So many organisations have contacted all of us, I am sure, about that. This morning in the all-party parliamentary group for respiratory health, we talked about the importance of catching up on lung cancer tests; it is the same with breast cancer tests. I also want to draw attention to the need for mental health treatment to be improved and caught up with, as too many people have lost out.
I turn briefly to public health. I heard the Secretary of State talk about public health, but we need not just talk, but action and funding. The pandemic has shown the real value of public health, which we know lies behind so many other issues. It is important that we have an effective local public health system. That links to my next point, which is really about child poverty. End Child Poverty has today produced a set of figures that sadly shows that child poverty has increased in the north-east, where my constituency is. More than 4,300 children in my constituency are living in poverty. That must be addressed. We need to retain the £20 universal credit uplift, expand it to legacy benefits and focus on child benefit.
There is so much more that I would like to say about planning reform and accessible housing, but I do not have time. I end by commending the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) on his maiden speech, which showed that he knows his constituency well and cares about it; I wish him well in his future career.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) [V]
Mr Deputy Speaker, with your ceiling of three minutes, I am going to focus on one aspect of one Bill—namely, the proposal to change the approach to the fluoridation of community water supplies. I am a dentist and a member of the British Fluoridation Society. It is therefore with considerable enthusiasm that I support the proposed change of the procedure for introducing fluoridation of domestic water supplies. Our western nation comparators have between 60% and 80% of their domestic water supplies fluoridated. This country has a shameful 10%.
When I first came to this country as an ethnic minority immigrant, I worked in the national health service in a deprived area of London. I was appalled by the general state of my patients’ teeth, particularly by the state of children’s teeth. Trying to maintain children’s dentition was and still is, as a colleague put it, like trying to fill a bath with the plug out. Far and away the biggest reason for referral of children for general anaesthetics to hospitals in England is to remove rotten teeth. In 2019, hospitals throughout England carried out an average of 177 operations a day on children and teenagers, just removing decayed, rotten and abscessed teeth that should not be in that state. The annual cost is more than £40 million.
Tooth decay is essentially highly preventable. Water fluoridation is the single most effective public measure that could be taken to prevent tooth decay. Implementation of fluoridation is in the powers of the local authority, but little progress has been made since that was introduced in 2013. The costs are to local councils and the cost benefits are to the national health service. The process of consultation is lengthy and tedious, and it is enabling a platform for protestors of the same genre of the anti-vaccination people.
On a more practical point, there are considerable difficulties for both the local authorities and the water companies in that their boundaries are rarely, if ever, coterminous. It makes eminent sense for the implementation process for new schemes of fluoridation to be put in the hands of and driven by central Government. In doing so, I hope the Government will curtail the procedures on consultation, as they only permit continuous reception and repetition of scaremongering stories from people who are basically cranks.
The safety, efficiency, cost-effectiveness and benefits of fluoridated water supplies, whether natural—and they are in many parts of the world—or as an additive, have been proven worldwide for what must be approaching 100 years. With this proposed step and Government determination, rather than lagging behind the rest of the world, we could actually lead.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
Mr Deputy Speaker,
“we will fix the crisis in social care once and for all, and with a clear plan we have prepared”.
I am not the first to quote the Prime Minister’s words as he took office and I am sure I will not be the last, and of course I recognise that the Prime Minister has a loose relationship with the truth and a willingness to make commitments with no intention of honouring them, but the Health Secretary has said that the Government will bring forward proposals this year, with the Prime Minister now claiming that he wants cross-party working to develop a plan. I hope he means it, and that there will also be real engagement with those in receipt of care, those who work in care and the hundreds of thousands of unpaid carers.
The pandemic has shone a spotlight on the crisis in social care, but the failure of the system has been clear for a long time. In developing a new approach, we must have real ambition, as our predecessors did in establishing the NHS, with an entirely new model, not just tinkering with payment mechanisms, and viewed in the same way as the NHS, with a comprehensive system of high-standard residential and domiciliary care that ensures no one is denied support because they cannot afford it.
We should take the same approach to those who work in the system, raising the status of carers to that of other healthcare professionals, and training them, supporting them and, crucially, paying them in a way that reflects the critical nature of their work. Of course, it will be expensive, but we need an honest national debate about the costs of reforming the care system and how we pay the price, not branding proposals as a “death tax” or a “dementia tax”, or talking about unaffordability.
We should also recognise that, however good the system, there will always be an important role for unpaid carers, and they must be recognised in the plan too, not cast adrift. According to the Carers Trust, the number providing over 50 hours’ care a week has more than trebled in the past decade, but only one in 10 says they have enough support. They need that support, they need respite and they deserve an adequate carer’s allowance.
We must also do more specifically for the invisible army of young carers—extraordinary children and young adults with huge resilience and strength, facing all the demands imposed on adult carers with the added challenges of schooling and making the most of their young lives. Ministers should act now to require schools and GPs to identify young carers and point them to the support they need, which we must ensure is available in every part of the country.
A Green Paper was newly published in 2017 and in almost every year since. The limited mention of social care in the Queen’s Speech suggests the Government are delaying again. It is not good enough. Millions of people are looking for better. We need a real commitment to act.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
There is time enough today to focus on two things: first, a suggestion about how Members of Parliament can work most efficiently with their local NHS trusts; and, secondly, a look at hypothecation—in other words, a dedicated fund to help boost the ways of funding health and care in the future.
It is now 14 months since the leaders of the three NHS trusts, our director of public health, the leader and chief executive of our county council and the six Members of Parliament for Gloucestershire got together virtually—every week, and more recently, fortnightly—to cover all the issues involved in the pandemic. During this process, we have all had a much better understanding of the immense debt we owe them and their staff, GP surgeries and volunteers for all they have done to give my constituents in Gloucester and across the county a service and a vaccination that has given people reassurance and confidence, and I am very grateful for that. I believe that there are opportunities for other parts of the country to benefit from a similar form of partnership, because this resolves problems faster, acts as an early warning signal back to Government, communicates more effectively with our constituents and, ultimately, saves us all a lot of time in helping to get things done.
The second thing I would like to highlight, because inevitably we are going to need more money if we are to resolve the issue of social care, is the possibility of hypothecation. In March 2017, I wrote a paper for the then Chancellor the Exchequer, laying out the case that I and the then hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford made for using hypothecation as a means of linking increases in taxation directly to improved health and social care services. At that time, the Chancellor had already said to us that he would only look at it in more detail if we could find a reputable think-tank to advocate for it, as well as us. We therefore encouraged the King’s Fund to write a report, which it did, recommending hypothecation. The former permanent secretary of the Treasury, now Lord Macpherson in the other place, also agreed that this would be a huge step forward. The reason is this: ultimately, the national insurance fund is not used to insure anything or anyone in particular, but were it to become a health and care fund, with the self-employed and the employed contributing equally, and those who have passed retirement age also contributing, then there would be an opportunity for our constituents to realise that additional taxation into the fund would help them and their families.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
This is a Queen’s Speech that lacks the ambition to deliver the transformative change that our country needs and wants. Despite repeated promises, the Government have no plans for how to fix the biggest challenges facing our country today. They have no solution to the rising problems of insecure and low-paid work, they have no solution to address the ever-increasing backlog of treatment needed in the NHS, and they have no solution to tackle the climate emergency. Nowhere is this lack of ambition clearer than on social care.
More than 10 years after the Conservatives entered Government, they still have no solution to the problems facing our broken social care system. Since 2017, the Conservatives have promised 10 times to bring forward proposals for social care and every time they have broken their promises. This continual kicking the can of reform down the road is letting down the people who need care: unpaid family carers and care staff. People deserve to be able to access care to support them to live independently in their own homes for longer, supported by care staff who are paid at least a real living wage. Instead, they face rising charges for care services, shrinking support packages, wage freezes for care staff and no respite for unpaid carers. A Health Minister told me in a debate I led on a carers strategy that only 45,000 carers had received respite care in 2019-20. That is a disgraceful record from the Government when there are now 13.6 million unpaid carers.
The Secretary of State said earlier that the long-promised reforms to mental health law will come in the next Session, rather than this one. We are coming up to the 10th anniversary of the revelations of abuse at Winterbourne View and the Government have failed dismally on the promises they made to close abusive in-patient units and support people to live in the community. Delaying to the next Session will mean two more years in abusive settings. I call on the Secretary of State to bring forward new legislation in this Session, so we can finally change this appalling situation.
With our Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham, we have seen the difference that radical local government can make to people’s lives, with action on homelessness and radical plans to create a public transport system that works for everyone. Instead of building on those plans to deliver transformational change, the Government are content to let people down with this thin Queen’s Speech. Rather than giving our hard-working nurses and doctors a real pay rise to recognise the work they have done this year, they are tinkering with NHS structures and handing more powers to the Secretary of State. Rather than bringing forward plans to ensure older and disabled people can continue to live in their own homes, they are once again kicking the can of social care reform down the road. Rather than bringing forward legislation to protect people at work and end the appalling practice of fire and rehire, they are seeking to roll out unnecessary voter ID legislation. The people of this country deserve better and I urge the Government to change their approach, live up to their promises, and deliver the real change this country needs.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
It is a real pleasure to be called in this important debate on the NHS in the Queen’s Speech. I join others in paying tribute to the amazing effort of NHS and social care staff in South Suffolk: all the staff at Colchester, Ipswich and West Suffolk Hospitals, our care homes, and the community pharmacy and vaccine teams in primary care who performed such an extraordinary job. Finally, I would particularly like to mention those volunteers who were standing in the snow of winter when we started the vaccine roll-out to help us to achieve what is basically a miracle of delivery of the vaccine. It should make us all proud of the NHS and proud, frankly, to be British.
I just want to make one key substantive point today, given that we are talking about a Bill that will reorganise the NHS: however we do that, we must maintain diversity of provision. I will refer to three key areas. The first is community pharmacy. I am a great fan of community pharmacy. It does a huge amount already, but it has earnt its spurs during the pandemic, giving out over 3 million jabs to date—more than the entire population of Greater Manchester. I have seen in my constituency how community pharmacies can really make a difference. My constituents have chosen them as their preferred place to receive a jab and it shows what more they can do. We must give them a deeper role in the delivery of healthcare in this country.
The second part of this is the voluntary sector, and I am thinking in particular of mental health. In Norfolk and Suffolk we have a struggling mental health trust, but when constituents have come to me with mental health problems in my surgeries—this was pre-pandemic— and I have been able to refer them to local mental health charities, they have often achieved great improvement in their mental health. Ed Garratt, the brilliant head of our local clinical commissioning group, supports this. We should look at more of the funding that goes to our NHS trusts going directly to those charities so that they become part of mental health capacity.
Finally, we should talk about the independent sector, and on this point I come back to my two earlier interventions on the shadow Secretary of State, because it was extraordinary what we heard today. As I said, Ipswich Hospital was able to double the number of ICU beds it had by moving cancer patients to the local Nuffield hospital. If someone was ideological enough to say, “We won’t work with the independent sector,” they are literally denying that capacity to people who use the NHS and saying, “You can only pay for it.” That is an extraordinary political point and it shows that the Labour party has not moved on from the depths of its dogma. We should deliver the best possible outcomes within the universal NHS, and that means diversity of provision at the heart of its delivery.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I join the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) in thanking the NHS for all the work it does, but I would ask him to look at the cost of using the private sector, because the lesson we have learnt in London is that it is not always the best value for money.
In the short time available to me, I wish to speak to amendment (g), which is about the groups of people who have been forgotten in this Queen’s Speech. If we do not speak for them in this place, nobody else will. I am talking about some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, particularly children who have been orphaned and victims of domestic abuse. They are people for whom the courts in this country have spoken. I am sure everybody in this House would agree that if we do not uphold the rule of law, how can we ask constituents to do so? Sadly, the Government have yet to act on those court rulings.
Let me tell the House about these two particular instances. Every 22 minutes in this country, a child loses a mother or father. It is estimated that 26,000 children become orphans each year. I know that stat from the Child Bereavement Network, not because this country monitors that—we monitor how many children might be affected by divorce, but we do not recognise death as damaging for children, yet we know that clearly it is. It is estimated that 2,000 families a year who find themselves in that horrific situation—many more will have done so because of covid—are not then eligible for financial support, and the reason for that is very simple: the state has decided that, because their parents are not married, those children must be pushed into poverty. It is estimated that 3,000 children a year—eight children a day—find themselves losing a parent and then possibly losing their home or family circumstances.
The courts said in 2018 that it was wrong to deny children in that situation that funding. In 2020 the Jackson ruling made that point again. Children, such as the children of Joana and Ros in my community, are being divided simply by whether their parents were married or not. The Government know that they have to remedy this situation, because otherwise we are punishing children for the decisions that their parents have made, and I do not think anybody in this House would want that. Let me be clear what remedying it means. It means making sure that we put this right for every child and every family in this situation, including those who brought the court cases, and making sure that no family is punished by the tax or benefit system, by having that money put right.
This is not just about those children; it is also about the domestic violence victims who are paying the bedroom tax because they have a panic room in their house. Again, the courts told us several years ago that this was wrong and that the Government should act, but they have not yet done so. Let us be clear about what remedying that means. It means helping those already affected, who have spent years struggling as a result, so that whenever regulations are made, they do not have to pay this. I ask the Minister to think clearly about those people, who need our voices in this House to ring out loud and clear. We have 54 MPs across the House backing this amendment, saying, “Let’s get it right now.”
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I welcome the measures set out in the Gracious Address to deliver the national recovery from the pandemic, which will make all the United Kingdom stronger, healthier and more prosperous than before. I welcome the fact that this Government are pursuing an agenda that will be for all parts of the United Kingdom, including Scotland and my constituents in the Scottish borders.
It is also clear from the Gracious Address that the Government are committed to the Union. I welcome the measures to enhance transport infrastructure, with investment promised to improve connectivity within the United Kingdom. I look forward to seeing more detailed plans in due course, but for my constituents in the Scottish borders there are exciting opportunities to improve cross-border transport links: by getting the borders railway extended to Hawick and Newcastleton and on to Carlisle, and by upgrading the A1.
A theme of today’s debate is the NHS and social care. It is important for me to pay tribute, as others have done, to those across the NHS who have worked tirelessly to deliver the national vaccine roll-out—nurses, doctors and many others within the NHS family have been working incredibly hard to get jabs into arms as quickly as possible. We have been leading the world. We should also recognise the efforts of UK Government Ministers, who have secured a robust profile of 450 million coronavirus vaccines for all the United Kingdom—something from which Scotland has undoubtedly benefited. This weekend, I will proudly roll up my own sleeve and finally become part of the daily statistics, receiving my vaccine at the Borders Events Centre in Kelso. It is worth pausing to reflect that the SNP Scottish Government would have preferred Scotland to have been outside the UK-wide procurement scheme and part of the EU vaccine process instead.
The SNP’s desire to be outside the UK leads me to the conclusion of my contribution, but before I finish I want to congratulate my colleague and friend Rachael Hamilton MSP, who was re-elected to the Scottish Parliament last week. We should also recognise my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), leader of the Scottish Conservatives, for his achievement in the election. He took over the leadership in August last year, and in that short period he has dedicated himself to stopping the SNP majority. Many in the press thought that he could not outperform our previous best ever Scottish election performance in 2016, achieved by Ruth Davidson. But not only did he secure 31 Scottish Conservative MSPs last week; he also attracted 100,000 additional Scottish Conservative votes. Crucially, he stopped that SNP majority and a mandate for a second independence referendum.
The SNP went into the election saying that securing a majority would give it a mandate for a referendum; Scottish voters thought otherwise. It should be focusing not on a referendum but on the day-to-day priorities that matter most to Scottish voters: the education system, the NHS and all the other pressing issues that need to be resolved. I congratulate my hon. Friends in the Government for producing this programme for government, and I wholeheartedly support it.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
As you will be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is Dementia Action Week. I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on dementia. In conjunction with the Alzheimer’s Society, we are arguing in the #CureTheCareSystem campaign that there is a desperate need to reform social care. While covid cases are going down in most places in the UK, dementia cases are only going to go up. By 2040, it is estimated that well over 1 million people in the UK will have some form of dementia, with a cost to the economy of £94 billion.
During the pandemic, people with dementia have been the worst affected. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that more than one in four of those who have died from covid also had a diagnosis of dementia, making dementia the most common underlying condition among those who have died from the disease. We know that the number of excess deaths of people with dementia—those not with a covid diagnosis—was about 5,000 higher than in the previous year.
There are a number of reasons for these data. The Government did too little to protect care homes at the height of the pandemic. Hospital patients were quickly moved from hospitals to care homes, all without testing, spreading the virus amongst vulnerable residents. There were also problems in accessing PPE and testing for care staff. Many of us can remember cases of care staff using bin-bags as aprons, or having to make round trips of hundreds of miles to access testing.
The second cause of the excess deaths has been the worsening of people’s conditions, primarily because of the isolation that many have experienced and the lack of ability to use basic skills, such as speech, which they are at risk of losing. For people with dementia living in the community, it is estimated that family and friends have provided an extra 92 million hours of care during the pandemic.
People with dementia and their carers need more than warm words. They need action to address the dementia premium in care home fees. On average, someone living with dementia or their family will pay £100,000 for their care. For them, for their carers, and for the dementia moonshot, we needed much more from the Government in the Queen’s Speech. With the Government’s proposed integration of the NHS and social care in their new Bill, the principle that healthcare and social care should be provided universally and free at the point of need is fundamental. I argue that it should be provided through progressive taxation.
Finally, on health inequalities and the UK’s appalling, high and unequal covid death toll—driven, as Professor Sir Michael Marmot has said, by the key causes of rampant poverty and inequality, a decade of austerity, the underfunding of the NHS and a political culture that fuels division—I repeat my challenge to the Health Secretary and the Prime Minister to adopt Sir Michael’s covid review recommendations and build back fairer.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s health service proposals in the Queen’s Speech, the unprecedented commitment and support to the NHS during the pandemic, and particularly the Government’s continued commitment to the hospital building programme, which has resulted in promised commitments to Kettering General Hospital of £46 million for a new urgent care hub, £350 million in health infrastructure plan 2 funding for 2025 to 2030, and a write-off last year of £167 million of trust debt at the hospital.
However, the Minister will know that promises are one thing and delivery is another. I know that as hospitals Minister he has the words “value for money” imprinted on his mind. In that vein, may I press him on the value for money that the Kettering General Hospital redevelopment offers? The problem is that at the moment the hospital faces two funding streams—£46 million for the urgent care hub and £350 million for the phased rebuild—but they are not yet meshing together. Building the original urgent care hub is no longer an option on a stand-alone basis, because there would not be enough room on the hospital site for the health infrastructure plan funding that follows.
The value-for-money solution is to integrate the two funding streams. The best way to do that, which I commend to the Minister, is to designate Kettering General Hospital as an early progress project in the hospital building programme. Kettering General Hospital is ready to go: it owns the land, so no land deals are required and no extra public consultation is needed, and it already has written support from local planners and the regional NHS. This is a phased approach that would deliver visible and real benefits, is shovel-ready and has far lower risks than other hospital build projects.
In developing the whole site plan, the hospital has identified the best way of delivering value for money to get these buildings up and operating, serving local people. Will the Minister look closely at Kettering General Hospital so that Kettering people can have the long-awaited hospital rebuild that we have long been promised and that will be so valued in the local community? The Department needs to be flexible in its funding streams. Let us have an early advance of the HIP2 funding and permission to mesh it with the £46 million for the urgent care hub. We can then have the hospital that Kettering will be proud of for the future. The decision lies in the Minister’s hands.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) [V]
Wythenshawe Hospital in my constituency is built on the site of Baguley sanatorium, which opened in 1902 to lead the way in tuberculosis treatment, planting the seeds of the excellent heart and lung unit at the hospital now. Those specialisms have been joined by an internationally recognised burns unit, by the fabulous Nightingale Centre breast unit, and recently by a world-class A&E facility after a campaign championed by my late, great predecessor, Paul Goggins.
Last week, the Government announced ambitions that the UK will lead the world in life sciences. I share that ambition and, with co-operation from Government, Wythenshawe and our hospital can be in the vanguard. Wythenshawe Hospital’s strategic regeneration framework sets out a vision for the campus, which will be supported by a world-class research and innovation business park alongside a redeveloped, modern and inviting hospital. Great companies such as Chiesi and Hologic are already based in my constituency. There is now an opportunity, with the SRF, to ensure that the fabric of the site reflects the world-class services at the hospital and the exciting prospect of leveraging the medical park to help Manchester and Britain to continue to be a world-class leader in life sciences.
Inward investments, high-skilled jobs and life-saving research are now more important than ever. The Minister will be pleased, I am sure, that I am not asking today for a pot of public money for this redevelopment. The cherry on top of this masterplan is that it will require no funds from Treasury. In fact, it can be funded on site with the correct commercial partners. I am so proud of this project, and I really wish to discuss it with the Minister at some stage in the near future. We need a mechanism from the Treasury to allow the vision to be realised and Wythenshawe Hospital to become the 21st-century leader in healthcare, research and innovation that we know it can be.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Queen’s Speech today. The past year has highlighted the challenges facing our health and social care systems, and I welcome the Government’s legislative agenda, which will tackle some of the most pressing issues. In the short time available, I will focus on three issues: plans to tackle obesity, the potential benefits of UK-wide comparable healthcare data, and the need for better access to, and choice of, secondary and tertiary healthcare for the residents of north Wales.
In the UK, 63% of adults are overweight or living with obesity. This places an enormous strain on the NHS, reduces quality of life and stifles economic productivity. The Government have a clear agenda to tackle obesity, and I welcome, among other measures, the confirmation of a total online ban and a 9 pm TV watershed for the advertising of high-fat, salt and sugar products. The commitment to legislate for calorie labelling in cafés, restaurants and takeaways is also welcome. Although I acknowledge certain concerns on behalf of those with eating disorders, I believe this policy will have a clear net benefit for our national health.
Can progress also be made on introducing calorie labelling for alcohol products? I am in no way anti-alcohol, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you know—in fact, I am a proud member of the beer, and wine and spirits all-party parliamentary groups—but I believe that there is currently poor awareness that alcohol consumption is a significant contributor towards our national obesity crisis. An alcohol calorie labelling programme would be a useful tool to enhance the plans already outlined in the Queen’s Speech.
The availability of comparable data on covid infection rates and vaccination roll-out throughout the country has been a key driver in our response to the pandemic, yet looking at healthcare more broadly, comparisons between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can be difficult to draw. My personal experience as a GP, anecdotal evidence and basic comparisons indicate that, despite the hard work and commitment of health staff, patients in Wales often receive inferior levels of service when compared with their friends in England.
By introducing UK-wide health data, politicians at all levels will be held to account, practitioners and policy makers can better share best practice, and, ultimately, equal health outcomes will be promoted. Such an approach would be complemented by the establishment of independent UK-wide healthcare inspection, safety and audit mechanisms. In short, we have opportunities that I believe we must seize to level up healthcare. I ask the Minister to consider what the UK Government can do, beyond the legislative programme already announced, to protect and promote the health of all British citizens.
I am looking forward to seeing the progress of the health and care Bill. I hope that, as part of the legislative process, the Government will consider the challenges that Welsh patients currently experience, whereby access to specialist healthcare treatment in England is typically dependent on restrictive contracts or individual funding requests. Improving access to specialist care—
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) [V]
A recovery plan for the NHS and social care is urgently needed. Almost 5 million people in England are waiting for NHS treatment, and a quarter of people with mental health problems are having to wait months to get help. NHS staff are exhausted from battling coronavirus, and there are nearly 90,000 vacancies across the NHS in England. Social care is in crisis following over a decade of savage cuts by the Conservatives, and 1.5 million older people are not receiving the social care support that they need. Care workers, many of them paid below the real living wage, have been working in extremely difficult circumstances.
However, instead of addressing these issues, the Government have come forward with a damaging White Paper that says very little on care but proposes a major reorganisation of the national health service. To do so at a time when staff are exhausted and millions are waiting for treatment is reckless and irresponsible. It is not acceptable that the Government have not carried out a consultation on their White Paper, and Ministers have failed to communicate the impact that the changes would have on patients and staff.
It beggars belief that the Secretary of State said on Monday that his proposed reforms would help to deal with the backlog. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sir David Nicholson, former chief executive of NHS England, has warned that the Government’s impending shake-up of the NHS could prompt a lot of staff already exhausted by covid to quit.
The Government’s damaging plans to put 42 integrated care systems across England on a statutory footing, with each ICS setting its own plan for health and social care, would embed a postcode lottery, with the health and social care services that people could access varying depending on where they live. The plans would open up the opportunity for private companies to have a say in what health and social care services are provided in an area, and the very same private companies could potentially then provide those services, representing an opportunity for huge conflicts of interest. The plans would also give the Government the power to remove a profession from regulation, with potentially serious implications for patient safety and for the employment status and terms and conditions of workers.
Professor Kailash Chand, honorary vice-president of the British Medical Association, said:
“The core thrust of the new reforms is to deprofessionalise and downskill the practice of medicine in this country, so as to make staff more interchangeable, easier to fire, more biddable, and, above all, cheaper.”
The plans would also allow the discharge of vulnerable patients from hospital before they have been assessed for continuing healthcare, leaving patients at risk and families to pick up the pieces. The Government’s plans would create immense uncertainty for NHS staff and open the door to widespread cronyism and increased privatisation.
On Monday, the Secretary of State told me that my party’s Front Benchers welcome the reforms. He is wrong. Labour’s Front Benchers have not welcomed these reforms. He really should get his facts straight. I call on the Government to pause the whole process of their reorganisation of the national health service until after all covid restrictions have been lifted and they have carried out a full public consultation, so that patients, NHS staff, care workers and unpaid carers can have their say on the proposals.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) [V]
I wish to put on the record my support for a robust strategy to tackle obesity, but I question plans to ban broadcasters and online platforms from advertising food and drink that are high in fat, sugar and salt before 9 pm. If the Government are going to have any form of impact, even foods that we consider to be health foods will be covered by the ban. Eggs, cheese and avocado—the list of foods that include those items is endless.
Let us take a look at the ramifications of a ban on TV commercials. I started my retail career with the Pizza Hut chain of restaurants 40 years ago, which is probably long enough ago for me not to have to declare an interest today. Before the pandemic, the UK’s three biggest chains, Pizza Hut, Papa John’s and Domino’s, got 90% of their sales of pizza online and from apps such as Just Eat, Deliveroo and Uber Eats. That is 60,000 jobs directly at risk and tens of thousands more in the supply chain, and that is just three companies in the UK. Do the Government seriously consider that a price worth paying?
Similarly, let us look at breakfast cereals. Under these proposals, we will ban the advertisement of some of our everyday breakfast items. The ironic thing is that over 50% of breakfast is no longer bought from a supermarket, but from cafés and greasy spoons around the nation. That immediately puts at risk major brands such as Kellogg’s, which have spent millions of pounds reformulating their products to reduce fat, sugar and salt, yet under the proposals they will be banned from advertising them before 9 pm. Meanwhile, our mainstream TV companies will lose out on approximately £75 million to £100 million of advertising revenue—revenue on which tax is paid in this country.
The Sun reported in March that the Government were considering doing a U-turn on banning online adverts, as evidence showed that it would have little effect. That has instantly created a chasm between mainstream broadcasters and online platforms that contribute little to the financial wellbeing of the nation because they are offshore companies. Millions of small businesses rely on online advertising to promote their businesses in this country, including in Calder Valley. There is absolutely no evidence that the proposed blanket ban for mainstream broadcasters and online advertising would make one iota of difference to reducing obesity, and I urge the Government to rethink these draconian measures.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
I want to begin by thanking NHS colleagues from University College London Hospitals and from services all the way up to Scotland, including in my Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath constituency, for the incredibly hard shift that they have put in over the last year. The warm words of the Prime Minister telling them that he knew how hard it had been for them must be replaced by swift action.
All that the nine words in the legislative programme demonstrate is that the Government fail comprehensively to understand the interdependencies of care services, from intensive and acute care to social, palliative and end-of-life care. In his first speech as Prime Minister on 24 July 2019, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) promised to
“fix the crisis in social care once and for all with a clear plan”.
In his 2019 manifesto, he stated that his Government would seek cross-party consensus. In January 2020, he claimed that he would
“get it done in this parliament”,
yet in October last year, the Minister for Care could not give any commitment in Parliament to the Health and Social Care Committee about action on social care.
We must face the reality of a social care system that at the start of the pandemic was underfunded, understaffed, undervalued and at risk of collapse. Any response to covid-19, however fast or comprehensive, would need to contend with that legacy of political neglect. Despite the Government’s espoused commitment to improving the social care system and introducing proposals in 2021, there is nothing on how they will do so, never mind fixing the system. Integration is undoubtedly the way forward to make the system work, but that requires funding and services that are in good order before it begins. Without social care reform, a robustly funded and continuing cancer recovery plan, as well as core funding for palliative and end-of-life care, services will continue to struggle and people will suffer.
There is an absolutely foreseeable risk. Expecting integrated care systems to find the capacity to reorganise and find end-of-life care pathways with fragile resources is recklessly putting the cart before the horse. This all matters in Scotland. As ever, we are more reliant on Barnett consequentials. All the while, the UK Government find ways to squirrel money away, preventing them from triggering our share. The Alba party amendment to the Gracious Speech recognises unequivocally the recent majority for independence parties in Scotland, calling for immediate progress on independence. The fact that that sentiment has been dismissed by the UK Government comes as no surprise, but the fact that it has been neither echoed nor supported by the victors of that election will not go unnoticed at all.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) [V]
I would like to begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) and the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Anum Qaisar-Javed) on their excellent maiden speeches. I remember all too well how daunting that is, having made my own maiden speech in the Queen’s Speech NHS debate in January last year.
Since then, our NHS has had the most turbulent of times. I pay tribute to the dedicated healthcare staff in my constituency, working day and night to keep us safe from coronavirus. I pay special tribute to Dr Poornima Nair, a dedicated and well respected GP at the Station View medical centre who died with coronavirus last year. In the House, I have talked about the light at the end of the covid tunnel. Thanks to the success of the UK’s vaccine roll-out, we are now beginning to see that light.
It was a UK grandmother who became the first person in the world to be given the Pfizer covid jab and, from then on, it has been onwards and upwards. The Government’s early focus on securing an extensive vaccine portfolio means that over 57 million doses have been given in the UK. The pandemic has really highlighted the importance of local healthcare and, as I mentioned in my maiden speech, it is one issue that unites every corner of my constituency. That has never been more true. From Bishop Auckland Hospital caring for covid patients to local GP surgeries and pharmacies vaccinating us to get us out of this pandemic, all parts of my constituency have pulled together.
Local healthcare provision matters, and that is why I will never stop banging the drum in this place for improved health services at Bishop Auckland Hospital. I am campaigning to restore the A&E that was lost under Labour, and I am grateful to both the Health Secretary and the Minister of State for Health for meeting me to discuss the campaign. So far, the Government have invested £450 million to upgrade accident and emergency facilities in more than 120 trusts, so I know they understand how vital A&Es are to local healthcare provision, and I hope my ministerial friends will hear me clearly when I say I will continue to fight for the restoration of our A&E in Bishop Auckland.
The Queen’s Speech has healthcare at its heart, and I want to focus on one aspect that is close to my heart and to my politics: mental health. I have talked in the past about my own struggles around mental health. The importance of talking about it cannot be overstated. Every speech, every conversation, every time we talk about our own challenges that we have faced, we chip away at the stigma, but it is clear that talking about mental health alone is not enough. I am glad, therefore, that the Government are pushing ahead with their reform of the Mental Health Act 1983. Work is already under way on improving access to community-based mental health support, with £2.3 billion a year as part of the NHS long-term plan, but I am looking forward to seeing what further changes are proposed. The stigma around mental health needs to end, and every time we talk about it we help chip away at that stigma. Let us press ahead with improving the situation on the ground, improving mental health support and helping to ensure that no more lives are lost through poor mental health.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thanks, Dehenna. Sadly, we had to cut the video—we had a still of you—and the audio was not brilliant. Perhaps you could have a chat with the technicians to try to establish what the problem was.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
On Monday, the Health Secretary told the House that he was looking at what more he could do to invest in the NHS on Teesside. I have been making representations on this for 11 years, including in conversations with the Health Secretary. To tackle the health inequalities in my area of Teesside, Stockton needs a new hospital, so when will he make good on his word on dealing with health inequality and build the new hospital that we need—a hospital that his Government cancelled 11 years ago?
Last month, the all-party parliamentary group for longevity’s report on levelling up health noted that health inequality between the north and south cost £13 billion a year in lost productivity. Indeed, even before covid-19, health inequalities in England were estimated to cost the NHS an extra £4.8 billion a year, so I was bitterly disappointed that the Queen’s Speech did not contain improved funding for public health. Cancer Research UK has said:
“If the UK is to tackle inequalities and make sure no community is left behind…then health must be hardwired into the Government’s ‘levelling up’ agenda.”
Let me give the Minister a sense of the scale of the problem we face, although these figures are from before the pandemic and will now be much worse. I will begin with lung health. In England, 6.5% of the population suffer from asthma; in Stockton North, that rises to 7.4%. The level of chronic pulmonary obstructive disease among the population is 1.9%. That rises to 3.1% in Stockton North, yet we have not seen the level of progress we need to tackle the inequalities in health. In fact, we are stagnating. The Government committed in the Prevention Green Paper to making England smoke free by 2030. They are on course to fail, but they could succeed by following the advice of Action on Smoking and Health and making the polluter pay. I ask the Minister: will she?
Turning to cardiovascular health, the level of coronary heart disease in England is 3.1%, but it is 4.1% in Stockton North. In England, 14.1% of people have high blood pressure; that rises to 16.2% in Stockton North. If the Government have learnt anything in the past year, it should be about maintaining good public preventive healthcare, but instead questions remain about the future of Public Health England. On mental health, 11.5% of adults in England have been diagnosed with depression. In my constituency, the figure is 16.1%. Mental health services were overstretched before the pandemic hit and many people face waiting for years. Some do not get any treatment at all. There is no sign of that pay rise for our NHS heroes in the Queen’s Speech either, and disappointingly, no sign of the long-promised blueprint for social care. It is time to address inequality in my constituency. Please Minister, give us the hospital that we need.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I have spoken to two constituents this week who have both given me permission to share their stories. The first is Lachlan Robertson, the son of Christine Robertson, who was a dementia sufferer with some additional medical needs. Mr Robertson described to me what he called “the Kafkaesque chaos” of trying to get someone—anyone—in the health and social care system to take responsibility for his mother’s care. Very sadly she died last year, quite unnecessarily, after a fall that took place in hospital that should never have happened.
The second constituent is Nick Stokes, whose wife Joy died earlier this year of cancer after a litany of missteps and misdiagnoses by his GP’s surgery. Mr Stokes believes his wife would still be with us if she had simply been able to see a doctor in person, rather than be fobbed off with a series of phone calls and online consultations.
These constituents give me licence to be blunt. We all—I certainly do—revere the founding principles of the NHS and honour the staff who work in it, but the fact is that the systems that manage the NHS and, in particular, its internal communications, too often let patients down, and that is why profound reform is so needed. The watchword of that reform should be the simple word “humanity”. We need more human systems.
I am entirely in support of all the digital revolution that is happening. Yes to more online telemedicine, and yes to artificial intelligence and machine learning—I yield to no one except possibly the Health Secretary in my enthusiasm for technology—but all of this tech should simply have one focus, which is to enable more face-to-face consultation and better internal communication.
I particularly welcome the steps that have been set out towards more integrated care services. That is absolutely the right principle. I particularly thank the Health Secretary for the announcement that happened this very day of a new integrated care centre finally being built in Devizes after many years of campaigning. I pay tribute to Ministers and also to my predecessor, Claire Perry, who campaigned long and hard for this treatment centre. It means we can finally end the long tradition of the MP for Devizes standing in an empty field with the Health Secretary on a photoshoot pointing to the empty plot of land where this building is going to rise, because as of next month, shovels will go in the ground. We will now get our integrated care centre, which is absolutely in keeping with the principles that the Government are setting out.
I encourage the Government to be as bold as possible in the reforms that are coming. We are no longer in the 1940s, when a great state system was created. We are not in the 1990s, when market disciplines were introduced into the NHS. We are in a new era, and we need a new NHS that is not state-led, not market-led, but properly community-led. I think that is the direction of travel that the Government are on, and I welcome it wholeheartedly.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) [V]
It is a privilege to speak in this debate today. I start by congratulating those who have made their maiden speeches today and by thanking all our NHS and care staff across my constituency of East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow, including allied health professionals. They have gone the extra mile to meet the demands of the past year in relation to treating both physical and mental health.
As a psychologist, I, along with the Royal College of Psychiatrists, hope that the proposed health and social care Bill will mark a very significant step towards parity of esteem for mental health services. In December 2020, there was an 11% increase in referrals, and the UK household longitudinal study found that during the peak of covid, average mental distress was 8.1% higher than normal levels, so we cannot underestimate the potential tsunami of mental health issues that will require to be treated as a consequence of this pandemic. We also cannot forget that staff have been exposed to significant trauma and will require psychological first aid provision to ensure their wellbeing.
I remain concerned by the lack of a statutory requirement in the Government’s White Paper to have mental health representatives on integrated care systems boards. I fear that failure to do so could result in mental health services being sidelined once again.
Our children have coped in their young lifetimes with one of the biggest adjustments and crises we have ever seen. We must be cognisant of their resilience but also the impact, because they have been dealing with a killer disease that they know can take away their loved ones and have had their educational and social lives turned upside down. Ensuring that the mental health concerns of children are identified, referred and treated is of paramount importance. The Royal College of Psychiatrists found that 1.5 million children are predicted to need new or extra mental health support as a result of the pandemic.
Finally, little has been said about people with disabilities. I hope I do not have to remind Government that a comprehensive reform to health and social care that ignores disabled people would not be comprehensive at all. Levelling up for people with disabilities must be at the heart of the response, and as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for disability, I once again implore Government to have a disability-inclusive covid-19 recovery plan.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) [V]
As a former NHS worker, I warmly welcome this Queen’s Speech, which will not only deliver on our manifesto commitments on health and social care but help our fantastic NHS and social care partners come out of the pandemic even stronger. In the last Parliament, we introduced the NHS Funding Act 2020, enshrining our unprecedented £33.9 billion investment in the NHS in law. We also got started with our commitment to build 40 new hospitals, including in Carshalton and Wallington, where over £500 million has been allocated to improve Epsom and St Helier Hospitals and to build a brand-new third local hospital in Sutton, protecting A&E and maternity services right here in our borough.
While our health and social care sectors could certainly not have been described as quiet pre-pandemic, they have been on the frontline of our pandemic response, dealing with an even greater, extraordinary demand on their services. The challenges that our health and social care sectors face as a result are stark. The NHS long-term plan had already highlighted many of the issues that existed pre-pandemic, especially around workforce and integration, but the coronavirus has also presented challenges around backlogs, including for elective surgeries and cancer treatments, and a spike in demand for mental health services, among many others.
I want to raise in particular the incredible effort throughout this pandemic of our amazing community pharmacists, who are so often left out of the conversation. They have demonstrated just how important they are, and we must reward this effort by reviewing their funding model, expanding their roles and giving them a seat at a strategic ICS level to help shape the future of healthcare delivery in their local areas.
This Queen’s Speech gives further impetus to deliver on the NHS long-term plan and to address not only the challenges faced pre-pandemic but the ones exacerbated and presented by it. Chief among the forthcoming legislation is the health and care Bill, which is designed to develop a more integrated care system, with the NHS, local government and other partners coming together, improving innovation and supporting patients to receive more tailored and preventive care closer to home, not to mention the additional measures to continue the life-saving vaccine roll-out, reform social care and truly embrace the preventive agenda.
This is not about looking backwards, to get the NHS and social care back to some kind of pre-pandemic level. It is about looking to the future and giving our health and social care sectors the ability to deliver a world-class service in a post-pandemic world. By driving integration, catching up on backlogs, tackling the challenges faced before the pandemic and those that came about because of it, reforming social care, helping patients with preventable illnesses and, of course, continuing to vaccinate the nation against coronavirus, this Queen’s Speech gives the NHS and social care the tools necessary to not only recover from the pandemic but deliver positive change and outcomes for patients in the years to come.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
A house without foundations will subside. The decennial reorganisation of the NHS has neither sure foundations nor structure. It will struggle to withstand the complex health challenges raining down on it. The one chance to meet the next decade’s health and care needs still awaits the foundational pillars of public health, mental wellbeing and social care White Papers. The Secretary of State’s proposal for yet another mass reorganisation is structurally unsound without those vital foundations.
With 5 million people queuing for operations and appointments, old and disabled people stripped of their money and dignity in a broken care market, mental health challenges enduring and deepening, embedded inequality and complex comorbidities, it is only the love and care of the staff that is holding the whole NHS together, while they are robbed of pay and respect and battling their own mental exhaustion.
I have four points to make. First, for years, Professor Michael Marmot has called for a focus on tackling health inequalities to improve health and wellbeing. This reorganisation will not see such a shift in health outcomes. Secondly, absent of a funding framework and with the national prescription of NHS provision ripped out of the NHS in 2012 by the coalition, the postcode lottery will entrench. In places such as York, rationing denies people vital healthcare.
Thirdly, I know that this Government hate scrutiny, but without it, wrong decisions are made and people suffer. Better accountability, not less, nationally and locally is needed. There is too much blame shift under this teflon Tory Administration. Strong governance and accountability leads to transparency and better outcomes. Fourthly, tragically, this past year has seen the most vulnerable exposed to the greatest risks. Of the 128,000 who have died, a third were in care homes, many alone.
Since 2010, this Government’s annual pronouncements of imminent social care White Papers have been worn like the emperor’s new clothes, laying the Government bare with no resolve. Unless there is a fully integrated public health and care service free at the point of need, we will never build the caring and compassionate society that we need.
The Government’s proposals drive the market through the centre of our NHS. While stripping out section 75 regulations is a must, their purchaser-provider approach conflicts with the planned collaboration necessary to fix the scale of challenge. These reforms provide neither remedy nor cure. There are no foundations, no strong structure. The Minister needs to go back to his architect—in my book, it should be the Labour architect of our NHS—and redraw his plans.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. There have been some withdrawals from colleagues wishing to speak, so I will put the time limit back up to four minutes.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
It is an absolute pleasure to be called to speak in support of the Queen’s Speech today, especially as I have an extra minute in which to speak.
As the Prime Minister has launched his own agenda of levelling up and building back better and the Queen’s Speech endorses that, I, too, am launching my own levelling-up agenda in my Stourbridge constituency, focusing on regeneration, growth and protection—the protection of my green belt, the regeneration of a town called Lye and growth in terms of jobs. I shall bridge that skills gap beautifully by working with Andy Street, the newly elected Mayor of the west midlands.
First, let me pay tribute to all those who work in the NHS in my Stourbridge constituency. They have gone above and beyond, and we owe them a debt of gratitude. Those on the Opposition Benches paint a picture of the NHS as a crumbling façade held together with sticky plasters, bandages and a bit of surgical glue. Instead, I see a picture of talent and dedication, an NHS that has stood the test of time since its inception and, indeed, through this pandemic. It is an NHS that is leading the way: one that has been truly transformational in adapting to a pandemic; one that is centre stage of the Government’s levelling-up agenda, with the ambitious plan to protect the health of the nation by continuing the vaccination programme and bringing forward legislation to empower the NHS to innovate and embrace technology.
I am always troubled when I hear emotionally charged words such as “a rescue plan for the NHS”. I suggest that it is neither I nor the NHS that needs a rescue plan as a priority. I am not blind to the pressures on the NHS; it is under significant financial pressure. Equally, I am not blind to the fact that it is this Government who have delivered the biggest cash boost in history for the NHS, enshrining it in law and safeguarding it for future generations by investing an additional £33.9 billion in frontline service every year by 2024—that is right, every year. It is the largest and longest funding settlement in the history of the NHS.
I particularly welcome the introduction of the health and care Bill, focusing on delivering better health outcomes for my constituents, making healthier choices easier, focusing on the preventative, and taking action to tackle the growing concern of obesity. I welcome the ban on junk food adverts on television before the 9pm watershed. Our relationship with food must change, and I know that mine must, too.
I strongly believe that every child should have the best start in life, and that includes their physical and mental health. Physical education in schools should not be a painful endurance once a week, but understood to be something more fundamental—upholding our physical wellbeing, keeping our hearts strong and healthy. The worst we can do with mental health is to ignore it, and I particularly welcome the boost to mental health funding of at least £2.3 billion.
I have a tiny bit of extra time, so I shall briefly mention social care reform. I very much welcome the Government’s confirmation that they will bring forward their plans for social care reform this year. My one ask is this: we must look for mechanisms to protect taxpayers’ hard-earned money, and look to increase the threshold for paying for social care to above £100,000.
The Queen’s Speech is more than a mirage and more than the emperor’s new clothes, as described by others. It makes a commitment to the next generation, and a clear commitment to our NHS, to our social care system, to my constituents, to their values and to all they have entrusted in this Government.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
As we have heard today, the Government’s continued inaction on social care is failing families across the country. We need a social care system based on the principles of our national health service—free at the point of use and funded by everyone, based on their ability to pay. Sadly, that is not the only damning omission in the Government’s legislative agenda. The tax system in this country is rigged in the interests of the super-rich. The Government know that, the public know that, but there is nothing in the Queen’s Speech to fix that. The Government should be introducing measures to make the super-rich and big corporations finally pay their fair share, but that would mean taking on the super-rich funders of the Conservative party, and we know that they will not do that.
This crisis has shone the spotlight on the deep and deadly inequalities in our society, but while 4.3 million children are in poverty, and while food bank usage soars, some have had a good crisis—a very good crisis indeed. The number of UK billionaires has not only soared; their collective wealth has increased by over £40 billion in the last year alone. That tells you everything you need to know about whose interests our economic system is set up to serve.
There is massive public support for increased taxes on the super-rich and on big business, but this Government just refuse to take on the wealthy and the powerful. So I tabled amendment (f), with cross-party support, calling for changes to our tax system to make the wealthy pay—first, to introduce a windfall tax on companies such Amazon that have made super-profits during this pandemic. Secondly, to introduce a wealth tax on the super-rich, so that they are not grabbing a greater and greater share as millions fall further and further behind. Thirdly, to increase tax rates so that those on over £125,000 a year—the top 1%—pay a fairer share. It really is time to break with the failed trickle-down mantra, which has been used for decades to justify deepening and grotesque inequality. A fairer tax system is how we start to build a fairer society.
If the Conservatives actually wanted to help working-class communities level up—if they wanted to move from rhetoric to reality—they would actually be doing those things. The fact that they are not tells you everything you need to know about who this Government truly represent.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I made my maiden speech in the previous Queen’s Speech debate on health, when you were also in the Chair, so it is a pleasure to speak in this one.
I welcome the commitment to bring forward proposals on social care reform. Covid has emphasised the long-standing issues facing the sector, and in our recent report, the Public Accounts Committee highlighted that among the challenges to be addressed are funding, workforce and the future accommodation model. Importantly, the plan needs to focus on younger adults with learning and physical disabilities and mental health issues, as well, of course, as elderly people. It should also support the essential role that unpaid carers, such as those I have met in North West Norfolk, play in looking after their family and friends.
As well as tackling social care, the Queen’s Speech pledges to increase investment in the NHS, and my constituents are particularly focused on the new hospital building programme. As one of the best buy hospitals, Queen Elizabeth Hospital in King’s Lynn was built with a life expectancy of 30 years. Now in its 41st year, QEH is in need of urgent modernisation due to major structural issues with concrete planks in the roof. The Standing Committee on Structural Safety first issued an alert regarding these rack planks two years ago. Currently there are 194 props across 43 areas of the hospital supporting the roof. The trust’s risk register has a red rating for
“a direct risk to life and safety of patients, visitors and staff due to the potential of catastrophic failure of the roof structure due to structural deficiencies.”
Aside from the safety concerns that the trust is managing, the props create a poor experience for the patients and hard-working staff in the hospital.
I welcome the recognition of the seriousness of the situation by the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister, and the £20 million of new funding that QEH has received this year will help to deal with the most immediate issues. However, the need is greater, and this is literally money to prop up the roof. As the Secretary of State said last week,
“you get to a point with a piece of infrastructure where continuing to just keep propping it up gets to the end of its usefulness and you need something completely new.”
I agree, and we have reached that point with QEH. The trust estimates that it will cost £550 million over the next decade just to manage the risks, not to improve the situation. In contrast, it has developed a strong case for investment to transform the hospital to meet modern healthcare requirements, deliver healthier lives, and harness innovation and technology, and all at far better value for money.
Other best buy hospitals are on the list of new hospitals, and QEH has a compelling case to be one of the eight additional schemes that the Prime Minister has committed to. I will be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister can update the House on when the selection criteria for those schemes will be issued. I reiterate the invitation to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to come to QEH to see the situation for himself. The need is obvious. Patients and 4,000 members of staff need a hospital that is fit for purpose. Thousands of people locally have signed a petition in support, local council leaders are supportive, and with significant housing growth planned in the area, demand for healthcare is only going to increase. I therefore urge the Government to back our bid to deliver the hospital that patients and staff deserve.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) [V]
I start by thanking the NHS and all the staff at University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire for all the incredible hard work that they have done over the past year.
I would like to highlight one of my constituents’ most pressing topics of concern, which is the need to rebuild our NHS and reform social care. Everyone in Britain has the right to be kept in good health and cared for from cradle to grave. It saddens me, therefore, that far too little is being done to fulfil that promise and that our NHS staff are paying the price for the failures of those in government. With children’s mental health referrals increasing by a third last year alone, over 1 million patients waiting more than six months to start treatment, and 370,000 suspected cancer cases that have gone unseen by specialists, now is the time for an NHS rescue plan.
The pandemic has exposed the issues that 10 years of austerity created for the NHS. Unable to paper over the cracks any longer, we can now see how badly the Government prepared our health system for this crisis. The NHS is not failing; it is just being failed. Even before the pandemic struck, we were short of 40,000 nurses and 7,000 doctors in all settings, and the number of community nurses, health visitors and mental healthcare specialists had all been cut between 2010 and 2020—a conscious choice made by this Government to run down the services that we all rely on. That is why we need bolder remedies than the weak response proposed by the Government. Embarrassed by the crisis that their cuts caused, they are short on ideas and even shorter on answers.
Nowhere is this clearer than in social care. Each and every year, we have been promised far-reaching reforms, and every year this Government have proved to be an abject disappointment. One and a half million people have unmet care needs in Britain today. We cannot fix the NHS without fixing social care too, yet the Government have so far been woefully unable to fill the over 110,000 vacancies open in the sector. The care system’s problems run from top to bottom. Carers are paid low wages on zero-hours contracts that rarely provide them with the time or resources to offer the comprehensive, high-quality care that they themselves want to give.
Funding, too, is in a state of acute crisis. The Government’s cowardly choice to pass the brunt of austerity on to local councils has stripped £8 billion from care budgets over the last decade. Millions of older people now fear that they will lose everything they own—everything they have worked for their entire lives—simply to afford the most basic care in their last years.
With 2,000 people with learning disabilities trapped in unsuitable care settings and a lack of beds accounted for by fully one third of patients stuck in hospitals waiting to be discharged, now is the time for wholesale reform. We have a duty to make the “new normal” better than what came before. The NHS needs its funding restored and its vacancies filled. The backlog of operations, referrals and appointments must be cleared. Our care system, left in the lurch for so long, must finally be reformed to meet the standards we expect, with better paid, better trained staff, who have the time to care for those in their charge.
In closing, I will say this. The Government are eager to claim the NHS’s successes as their own, but we should thank instead the thousands of healthcare workers who have done more than ever before to keep the system going. They gave us their all. Who are we to do any less in return?
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
I rise to welcome the measures in the Queen’s Speech, particularly on skills—legislation to back up our White Paper on adult learning; retraining to help people move across sectors; funding for that learning; and better career paths for people into work. Those are particularly important in the wake of covid and vital to our levelling-up agenda. If we are going to make a long-term impact, capital investment is all well and good, but education is the key to long-term levelling up.
There is a strong expectation among my constituents that we will deliver on immigration, and I welcome that commitment in the Queen’s Speech. There is a strong theme on levelling up and what it means throughout the Queen’s Speech. The east midlands is consistently at the bottom of the charts when it comes to Government and private sector investment, so I would argue that it is most clearly in need of levelling up. I would welcome conversations with any and all Ministers about setting out a clear vision for that.
It is my belief that there is a handful of key decisions—about HS2, devolution, our freeport and our development corporation—that are fundamental to our long-term progress in the east midlands. We cannot afford to let our region down. Given his Leicestershire constituency, the Minister will appreciate the importance of support for the east midlands.
The theme today is health and social care. I have a number of points to make in a short time. First, I am pleased to see Government plans to make progress on social care reform in this Session. I welcome the elements of that in the Queen’s Speech—we know that such reform is long overdue. Although ad hoc grants to support local authorities in the delivery of social care have been welcome, they are not a long-term solution. We need certainty on this issue. Will the Minister give us some time scales, if he has them, for ideas and proposals coming forward?
Secondly, I would welcome some clarity on prevention in the health and care Bill. Perhaps, in truth, we could look again at some of these priorities. I have raised concerns about the obesity strategy a number of times and there are proposals that, in my view, verge on meddling in people’s freedom and choice. Over the past 18 months, we have seen that our public health functions have a huge amount to do to ensure their preparedness for major health issues. We should focus on that, rather than limiting people’s choices in shops, pricing people out of items or banning adverts, which has dubious impacts, if any. Let us support people with information and facilities to encourage healthy lifestyles and exercise; banning two-for-one Mars bars will not have the impact that we would hope for.
The Bill is set to look at a more integrated system of care between the NHS and local authorities. I make a plea to the Minister—I have spoken to him about this already—to start on the right foot by confirming our county’s integrated care boundaries and fixing those to the county boundary in Nottinghamshire. That will allow us to deliver more efficient and effective primary care, and I know that that is in line with Government priorities. Unblocking the gateway in primary care is absolutely vital to offering a better experience to residents. We can make a big impact with an early and good Government decision.
The Government can be proud of the record levels of support and investment in our health service. We need to use this opportunity now to ensure that funding is put to good use, with the most efficient and effective service delivery to residents. Let us not waste it on meddlesome interventions into eating habits; instead, let us look at direct support to improve healthy lifestyles for those who need it. Let us encourage activity, educate and improve access to community-based services, which are key to tackling our health inequalities and are therefore a big part of levelling up life chances.
There is a huge amount to welcome in the Queen’s Speech, and I have not even touched the surface in just four minutes, but I very much welcome the proposals and look forward to supporting the Government in delivering them during this Session.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I refer Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who work in our NHS and social care system in Peterborough. Both of my parents were nurses in Peterborough’s NHS, so I know first hand about how much the NHS means to the people of Peterborough.
Yesterday, the Health and Social Care Committee took evidence from Jonathan Freeman. Sadly, his mother Gillian died in January, after suffering for many years with dementia. His answers to my questions were powerful and worrying. The death of a parent is upsetting in any circumstances. Unfortunately, it was made far worse because of the difficulty in securing the right care for Gillian, or in fact any financial support. It took Mr Freeman two years to persuade her GP that there was a problem. When advanced dementia was properly diagnosed, he got his mother into a care home. That care home made mistakes and lacked the support for her dementia. He had to move her again. This new home was much better. It encouraged him to apply for funded nursing care to meet his mother’s needs. Years of savings were being rapidly depleted. A month of rental income from her house was paying for less than a week of her care.
To get the assessment, Mr Freeman told me:
“You would not believe how much nagging”
was needed and the
“delays we had”,
but he got there, and he was told his mother qualified. The assessor even told him that her funding would be backdated. The assessor left, six months passed and he pushed for answers. The assessor had registered the claim on the computer, but never filed the paperwork. He was assured it would be sorted out, but instead the clinical commissioning group secretly commissioned a peer-led review of the assessment. Someone who had never met his mother concluded she should get nothing.
“They would not tell me the reasons”
for that, he told me.
“They did not even tell me there was that panel”.
He appealed. They refused. No reasons were given.
Mr Freeman told me that
“I was a senior civil servant. I understand bureaucracies, but this was Kafkaesque.”
Gillian’s illness progressed. He did not want to go through that ridiculous process again, at least until he was certain it would succeed. By that stage, she was immobile and unable to eat by herself or even communicate. So he applied, and after further delay, everyone agreed with all of the assessments, apart from one—mobility. The CCG’s assessor argued that the wrong hoist had been used, but assured him that this would not be used as an excuse not to fund, but it was. He appealed. They refused, and again no reasons were given.
Mr Freeman had to sell his mother’s house to pay for her care. She was denied access to a continuing healthcare package despite the clear view of three expert assessors, and she died without receiving a penny. It was very clear to him that the CCG seized
“any possible excuse not to provide mum with the financial support that was her right”.
The CCG does not even monitor its performance for meeting the statutory criteria for appeals. It took an FOI request for the CCG to admit it.
The Queen’s Speech committed the Government to bringing forward proposals to reform social care, and we have heard scepticism today about that, but this Government deserve credit for making that promise, and there is no question—no question at all—but that reform is long overdue.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and to be back here in the Chamber.
The conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age all impact on our health, which means that wealth inequalities and health inequalities are inextricably linked. Even before the pandemic, avoidable deaths were twice as likely in poorer parts of Wales compared with more affluent parts of the state. This growing link between poverty and poor health outcomes has been exacerbated by covid-19. Poverty reduction, therefore, must be at the heart of tackling health inequalities not just in Wales, but across the British state.
Yet for all the talk of levelling up, this Queen’s Speech, sadly, is devoid of genuine solutions. Levelling up is clearly an easy slogan for Ministers to use, but what exactly does it mean? Does it mean tackling the long-standing regional wealth disparities within the British state? If so, where is the detail about how meaningful change will be delivered?
There was a damning report this week by the Resolution Foundation and the London School of Economics, which indicated that the UK was facing decades of prolonged stagnation by the end of this decade—by the end of the 2020s—because of the failure of the British Government to come up with a policy solution for the major challenges we face: covid recovery; the challenges posed by Brexit, the green transition and decarbonising the economy; automation and all the challenges that will bring, with the loss of jobs in the economy; and of course the demographic changes and challenges of an ageing population that we are all too aware of. The authors of the report said this week in the newspapers that the Queen’s Speech failed to grapple with any of those major challenges. “Levelling up” is the new “rebalancing” of the Cameron-Osborne era—slogans without detail.
Glaringly missing also from the Gracious Speech was a new Act of Union to reconfigure the British state for the post-Brexit age. Even Unionists in the Welsh Government recognise the need for urgent change and are advocating home rule for Wales. Their problem, of course, is that nothing they advocate is deliverable because of the implosion of the Labour party in Scotland and England. This means that the structures they envisage can only be introduced by a Tory British Government here in Westminster who are hell-bent on a strategy of aggressive Unionism. I know that some on both sides of the House dismiss talk of constitutional matters as a luxury in the context of the deep-rooted social inequalities we face, but they are essential. The truth is that the British state has fundamentally failed to ensure that a sizeable chunk of the population have sufficient income to be healthy. If this place cannot reform, as I suspect is the case, then it is inevitable that more will flock to the banners of YesCymru.
Before I bring my remarks to a close, I would like to touch briefly on another element missing from the Queen’s Speech: support for those who have lost loved ones. The British Government have established a commission on covid commemoration. Having laid a heart on the memorial wall on the opposite side of the river earlier today to my great friend Les Thomas, I do not seek to undermine the value of creating spaces for remembering and coming together. However, if we truly want to build a society that deals with grief compassionately, the UK Government must introduce paid bereavement leave and paid miscarriage leave. Losing a loved one can be one of the most difficult and painful challenges that anyone will face in their lifetime. No employee should have to worry about keeping a roof over their head or food on the table when they are dealing with grief. Being pushed to return to work before they are ready can have a devastating impact on a person’s mental and physical health. Currently, the British Government place the responsibility of supporting employees on to employers and hope they will all be sympathetic. The reality, however, is that not all are.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Anum Qaisar-Javed) and by saying llongyfarchiadau mawr—massive congratulations—to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar). This has been an interesting debate. I have been here pretty much from the start, and it has been great to hear the breadth of the contributions we have heard today.
I rise in support of the Queen’s Speech, but before I talk specifically about our health service and the NHS I want to talk about fundamental principles. What we saw in the communities I represent in Wednesbury, Oldbury and Tipton two weeks ago is that they back those principles. There are now nine Conservative councillors on Sandwell Council, the first elected in 10 years, which is proof that my communities in Wednesbury, Oldbury and Tipton are endorsing them. Indeed, in Tipton itself, my new adopted home, two out of the three seats are now held by Conservative councillors. I found it quite interesting that the Sandwell Labour group is now bringing in mentors for their councillors to teach them how to do things such as case work. To save a bit of time and money, I would just say that our group is happy to do that and give members of the Sandwell Labour group a bit of a hand if they need it.
This is a really important debate. I pay tribute to the fantastic NHS staff in my communities, to the people at Tipton Sports Academy who have been volunteering with mass vaccination for nearly three months now—I had the honour of volunteering there myself—and to the people at Portway Lifestyle Centre who have also been providing vaccinations.
When we talk about the breadth of the services we offer, social care is fundamental. In my communities, we estimate that roughly 16,000 people provide care in some form or other. It is vital that we get this right. I sit on the Public Accounts Committee alongside my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild); I will not go back over the challenges that he highlighted, because he has probably articulated them better than I could, but we have to solve them because they are ever present. I know from our conversations that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench are aware of them, but now we must find solutions. I pay real tribute to the Sandwell Young Carers, who are truly inspirational in the work that they are doing—they are stepping up.
When we debate adult social care, we have to remember the role of the third sector, because it is quite often overlooked. I have had a lot of conversations with the third sector in Sandwell about adult social care, particularly in preparation for our Committee’s inquiry, and it sees the challenges articulated by my hon. Friend—they are absolutely the same for the third sector, the private sector and the public sector.
I want to focus today on primary care because it has been so prevalent an issue in my communities. I welcome the £1.5 billion that the Government rightly intend to place in primary care, but the key thing for my communities is being able to see a GP. Don’t get me wrong: the investment from the Government has been great—people are excited for the Midland Metropolitan Hospital to come online next year, and it is great to see it come through—but in my communities, particularly in areas such as Oakham in Tividale, people are struggling to see their GP. I have been inundated with correspondence on how we need to ensure that primary care investment works in the right way. I implore my hon. Friend the Minister to look into that. The investment is absolutely there, which is great to see; it is just about making sure that the delivery works.
Finally, may I pick up on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger)? He was absolutely right that technology is great, but we will never eliminate the need for face-to-face appointments. There are people in my community who are digitally disconnected. They will not be able to have online appointments, so we have to ensure as we move forward that the balance is right.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I would like to correct the record. I heard a number of Conservative Members repeating a statement that the Prime Minister has made on numerous occasions, being somewhat economical with the truth when it comes to the so-called record levels of investment in the NHS. I double-checked on Fact Check during the debate: actually, the largest increase to NHS spending was between 2004 and 2010, and hey—it was by a Labour Government. That was £24 billion. Those are the facts—check on Fact Check. That is not being economical with the truth; it is the truth, so please check that. I correct the record.
It is also a fact that today Jenny McGee, one of the nurses who looked after the Prime Minister when he was incredibly ill with covid—he praised her for her care—has resigned, stating that she was concerned, as were all her colleagues, about the lack of leadership and direction in the covid crisis. She felt unappreciated, beyond the clapping—I take our minds back to the Thursdays—in terms of pay and working conditions. That is a fact; that is the truth.
I will turn now to things that were missing from the Queen’s Speech. It is also a fact that yesterday, while Labour Front Benchers were preparing to highlight the ongoing nightmare of the building safety crisis, I got a call from a local councillor informing me that the roof of part of a building at Northwich station in my constituency of Weaver Vale had collapsed. It was a miracle that nobody was killed or seriously hurt. The emergency services quickly stepped into action. Northern and Network Rail started the hokey-cokey of taking responsibility for making the area safe and eventually reopening the line. An investigation will take place, and I can say with confidence that part of the answer lies in the lack of investment on that line and infrastructure over the last decade—investment that I and other parliamentarians have called for. There has been no leadership, no direction and no investment. Nothing in the Queen’s Speech spoke to my constituents to reassure them that that decade of failure would be put right.
If someone who is disabled is on that line in my constituency, they cannot even travel in one direction. Just after Christmas, in the midst of the pandemic, Northwich again had a major flooding incident—the second one in as many years. Indeed, the good people of Acton Bridge, local schools, businesses and residents felt the brunt of it. Elderly residents were evacuated. In all fairness to the Environment Secretary, he came along and paid a personal visit, but when I pressed him for support and investment in our creaking infrastructure, my words fell on deaf ears.
I am going to set Ministers a challenge to respond to calls from my constituents who want first-rate, affordable transport and stations that do not fall down. They want investment in modern drainage systems, and, let us have a new hospital for Halton, Minister.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con) [V]
I start my short remarks by thanking all NHS and care workers in my Broxtowe constituency for the work that they have done over the past year. There is much to welcome in the Queen’s Speech that will begin to help all areas of the UK to recover from the devastating impact of the pandemic. I welcome the Government’s plans to deliver the health and care Bill, which will put in place better integrated care between the NHS, local government and other partners. The Minister will be aware that any comprehensive health service must focus on mental health as well as physical, so I would like to focus my remarks on that issue.
Mental health affects all corners of our society and has, for far too long, been overlooked as a priority, which is why I am proud that the Government are ensuring that mental health is at the top of the agenda. The Office for National Statistics has shown that, during the pandemic, mental health has worsened across every age group in the UK, and the number of individuals showing symptoms of depression has doubled. The announcement to boost mental health funding by at least £2.3 billion over the course of this Parliament, as well as transforming mental health services and supporting more people in our communities, is very welcome.
Recently, I wrote to the Government to offer my thoughts on the Mental Health Act White Paper. The Government announced landmark reforms to the Mental Health Act to give people greater control over their treatment, ensuring that it is fit for the 21st century and delivering on a key manifesto commitment. The White Paper details an increase in community support. I would welcome a detailed outline of what this expansion of community support will look like at all levels, when it can be expected and how it will be implemented across the country to ensure that all areas of the UK have the same levels of support in place.
I welcome these much needed changes, and I am particularly pleased to see recommendations to ensure that mental illness is the reason for detention under the Act and that neither autism nor learning disability is grounds for detention. I met a number of Broxtowe residents to consider the issues surrounding autism and mental health, and there is a clear need for further support. While speaking to constituents, I have come to understand that a lack of community resources is often the largest barrier to those with autism and learning difficulties returning to their communities after being in in-patient facilities. I would appreciate a commitment to evaluate and improve services in place across the UK to ensure that that support is available. I welcome the Bills outlined in the Queen’s Speech and I look forward to seeing the Government continue to prioritise our nation’s mental health.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Once again, despite big promises, we have a Queen’s Speech that just tinkers around the edges. It falls short of what we need for the country and what is needed for my constituents in Putney.
You may be surprised to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the volunteers at Putney Scrub Hub are still working flat out to provided much-needed scrubs for hospitals across London and beyond. Covid exposed the urgent need for a national uniform to save millions of pounds and provide our healthcare workers with the uniform they need at the right place and the right time. Instead, there is a fragmented system—a fragmented bureaucracy —that could not scale up at the speed needed. We do not pay our healthcare and care workers enough—clapping is not enough—and the very least that we can give them is the right uniform. Ministers did not step up at any stage to recognise the problem, take it on and solve it. That has still not happened. I welcome the consultation on a national uniform, such as they have in Wales. I hope that the measure will go through in the next year.
One of the biggest issues for my constituents in Putney is social care. On his first day in Downing Street, the Prime Minister promised to fix social care “once and for all”. Twenty-two months later, we have seen nothing. It has not been kicked into the long grass—it never left the long grass. This morning, the Prime Minister again said that there was a plan, but where is it? This afternoon, the Secretary of State made a passing comment in his speech at the beginning of the debate, saying that it would be brought forward this year—but, again, no plan.
Since the Prime Minister’s first day in office, dementia victims and their families have paid a staggering £14 billion for social care. The Prime Minister and the Government have let down every single one of those families, including many families in Putney. Even before the pandemic, there were 1,628 older people in Putney with unmet social care needs. That translates to 1.5 million people across the country. Adult social-care council budgets have been cut, and it is no surprise that 69% of the public believe that fixing adult social care should be a top priority as we recover from the pandemic.
We need a national social care system that is joined up with the NHS, and we need the much-promised dementia moonshot. Without life-changing treatments, the number of people with dementia is set to grow to 1 million in the next five years. No more empty promises; no more leaving families struggling and despairing. We need a clear, budgeted plan for social care reform, complete with milestones, with reform this year, 2021—not next year, not on the never-never. The reforms must improve access to care and quality of care, and provide better working conditions for care workers, with services joined up between the NHS, social care providers and community providers. I urge the Government to listen to the public and come good on their promises to fix adult social care at last so that we can all recover from the pandemic.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) [V]
It is a privilege to be called to speak in today’s debate and to support Her Majesty’s Gracious Address, which sets out a bold, ambitious plan to truly unite and level up every region of our United Kingdom more than a year after the 2019 general election, in which the Conservative party recorded its highest vote share and returned Members of Parliament for parts of the country that had either never elected a Conservative or had not done so for a generation.
The Gracious Address sets out how we will recover from the pandemic, supporting our economy and addressing the legacy of covid-19 by improving the health of the nation.
Just two weeks ago, the people of Hartlepool added another blue brick in our blue wall. Another great northern town with a proud history has seen the merit of electing a Conservative MP. That was undeniably a vote of confidence in this Prime Minister and his mission to bring about opportunity across our country and turbocharge our recovery from the effects of the pandemic.
In Darlington, a Conservative MP, a Conservative-led council and a Conservative Mayor—the re-elected Ben Houchen—are working together. It is that collective resolve that has seen a phenomenal level of investment in the short time since I was elected to this House. I can report that this Government’s investment is already seeing the unlocking of private sector investment in Darlington.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor, in choosing Darlington for his northern Treasury, has unlocked a steady stream of other Cabinet Ministers heading north from King’s Cross, bringing more jobs to Darlington. Those include the Secretary of State for International Trade and, only yesterday, the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy of 100 more jobs. We have seen £105 million invested in Darlington station, £23.3 million from the towns fund and, through the pandemic, millions of pounds to help our council respond and to support our businesses. I look forward to the future opportunities that the levelling-up fund will bring.
That investment is being matched by a firm commitment to continue to improve the health of the nation, investing in our NHS, delivering more nurses and bringing about comprehensive reforms for our social care sector. I welcome the Government’s commitment to introduce a health and care Bill that will deliver an integrated care system, ensure that NHS England remains accountable to taxpayers, tackle the growing problem of obesity and put the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch on a statutory footing. The Government have committed to bringing forward proposals to reform adult social care, delivering an improved care system that provides the dignity and security that people deserve, as well as embarking on long overdue reform of the Mental Health Act 1983.
While the Opposition continue to focus on their internal strife, this Conservative Government continue to deliver on the people’s priorities. This Queen’s Speech delivers on those priorities, and I am pleased to support it.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) [V]
The legislative programme outlined in the Queen’s Speech lacks the ambition, depth and understanding needed to address the many health, poverty and social inequalities facing the residents, communities and families of Leicester East.
There is nothing in this legislative programme to save Leicester General Hospital from being downgraded. Our NHS staff and care workers are exhausted and there are nearly 5 million people in the UK waiting for NHS treatment. Rather than investing in our NHS, the proposals actually cut services, including hard-working staff. NHS staff and social care workers deserve much more support than they are currently getting, including a 15% pay rise instead of the insulting 1% real-terms pay cut offered to nurses.
We should all be very worried about the new powers granted to the Health and Social Care Secretary to accelerate the privatisation of our NHS. The Government want more profit and less care. I urge them, rather than downgrading Leicester General Hospital, selling off its land and extending NHS privatisation, to reverse their strategy and properly fund all hospitals in Leicester and across the UK.
On planning, the Government want to give more powers to property speculators and developers while delivering less genuinely affordable housing. The Royal Institute of British Architects has already warned that the Government’s plans could lead to
“the next generation of slum housing”.
On overcrowding, there are pockets of my constituency close to Leicester General Hospital where populations of 2,000 live in areas of 60,000 square meters. Hon. Members may not know what that equates to. It means that each person has an average of 32 square metres of space, which is equivalent to a box bedroom. The UK average is 3,676 square metres of space per person, more than 100 times the space afforded some people living in Leicester East. There is nothing in the Government’s legislative programme to address that stark inequality or to provide the health services that such overcrowded populations need. Rather than making it harder to build homes fit for working families, the Government must properly fund local authorities such as Leicester City Council and rapidly increase the construction of council housing and genuinely affordable family-sized homes.
On jobs and tackling poverty, I was proud to join the picket line in solidarity with workers at SPS Technologies in Barkby Road, in Leicester East, who bravely took strike action, with Unite the union, against their employer’s appalling fire and rehire employment practices. Well, we won. This form of solidarity will now be needed across the country, because the Government have failed to outlaw these exploitative practices.
Endemic wage exploitation in Leicester’s garment industry continues apace, with workers still being paid as little as £3 per hour, while the retail brands make super-profits, profiting with impunity from the exploitative sweatshop labour of workers in Leicester and worldwide. Factories compete to supply at the lowest price possible, and 60% of garments end up in landfill within a year. In addition to strengthening powers of the unions, collective bargaining power and workers’ rights, we need a garment trading adjudicator, similar to the Groceries Code Adjudicator, to ensure that payment terms for suppliers are fair, that wages are paid at a legal rate and that employment is secure. We need a more sustainable and ethical fashion industry and an end to zero-hours contracts and throwaway fashion.
The wellbeing of our entire planet and our health relies on our using the post-pandemic recovery to mitigate the existential threat of climate change with a radical green new deal to rebuild the country in the interests of people and planet.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]
May I associate myself with the remarks of Members who have once again reminded us just how much we all owe, even in normal times, the health and social care workers across these islands, and how much more we are in their debt for their work over the past 14 months? May I also take this opportunity to congratulate my good friend and colleague Humza Yousaf on his appointment today as Scotland’s Health Secretary, and indeed to congratulate all those who have been appointed to the re-elected Scottish National party Government? May I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Anum Qaisar-Javed) on an outstanding maiden speech? Although I am now an adopted Fifer, I was brought up less than 200 yards from her constituency boundary and she now represents a significant number of my relatives, although not nearly enough to account entirely for her magnificent majority last Thursday.
There should be no argument over the fundamental principle that care services need to be much better integrated and co-ordinated. There may be arguments about how we achieve that—there have certainly been arguments in Scotland, where we are quite a bit further forward in the process—but if it is done properly, it can have a huge and positive impact on the lives of millions of people. I understand the concerns that have been raised in a number of quarters about the changes that the Government are proposing, and it has to be said that nearly all of those concerns boil down to one simple problem: people do not trust this Government. They do not think the NHS and the social care sector are safe in this Government’s hands, and I do not blame them. A Government who still refuse to legislate to prevent the back-door privatisation of services as the price of a trade deal with the USA, who refuse to pay health and social care workers anywhere near what they are worth, and who insist on treating immigrant workers as if they were a necessary evil, rather than a valued and welcome part of our society, are always going to struggle to make anyone believe that they really care about our care services.
If the Government think that is an unfair description and want to change that perception, may I suggest a few things they could do? They could outlaw extortionate parking charges at NHS hospitals. They could abolish prescription charges. They could commit to abolishing all charges for non-residential personal care. They could commit to abolishing charges for NHS dentistry. They could commit to a proper living wage of at least £9.30 per hour for all social care staff. They could commit to providing 76 GPs per 100,000 of population, rather than the 60 they currently provide. All of that and much more is already being delivered or has been committed to by the SNP Government in Scotland. All of it is deliverable and affordable in England right now. The only thing that Scotland has that England does not is a Government who care.
On 6 May, the SNP Scottish Government were re-elected for an unprecedented fourth consecutive term of office, receiving more votes than any party has ever received in a Scottish parliamentary election, and a higher share of the vote than the Conservative party has achieved in any UK general election during the 60-plus years that I have been alive. The people of Scotland have insisted at the ballot box that decisions about our NHS and care services are taken by a Parliament of our choosing. They have also made it abundantly clear that now is the time to give the people of Scotland the right to choose whether that Parliament of ours is once again given the full powers of a sovereign, independent nation.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) [V]
I must admit that I greatly enjoyed the Health Secretary appearing to argue that our health and care sectors need to recover after a decade of Tory government—I could not agree more. The covid-19 pandemic has served to expose the damage done by Tory austerity and privatisation to our NHS and social care sectors. They are understaffed and underfunded, while existing staff are overworked and underpaid. However, unlike the Health Secretary, I do not think that further privatisation is the answer, even if he and his pals are already drooling at the thought of selling off the NHS to every Tom, Dick and Tory donor.
It is clear that our health and social care sectors are in crisis. Before the pandemic, there were over 100,000 NHS vacancies, while a quarter of staff were more likely to leave than in the year before. The Government’s plan to address that is to give NHS staff another real-terms pay cut. Added to that, there are an estimated 112,000 social care staff vacancies. Again, with zero-hours contracts and median pay of just £8.50 an hour, I do not think there is any great mystery behind that shortage. However, the social care crisis goes beyond staffing. Age UK estimates that there are 1.5 million older people not receiving the social care support they need. Councils have had their budgets slashed by nearly 50% on average since the Tories came to power, with around £8 billion taken out of social care budgets since 2010, so is it any surprise?
We desperately need a plan for social care that relieves the pressure on unpaid carers and widens access to adult social care where it is needed, yet the Government appear clueless. This crisis requires a dynamic Government: a Government who are ready to accept the ideological failures of austerity and privatisation, who are willing to invest in publicly-run health and social care services, and who reward the workers who staff them. Instead, the promised plan for social care is still missing, private healthcare firms are being welcomed with open arms, and workers face pay cuts and poverty wages.
The Health Secretary speaks about the prevention agenda, but the main cause of ill health is not obesity alone; it is poverty. He can talk about levelling up, building back better and the rest of their buzzword bingo, but until the Government address insecure work, low wages and welfare reform, health inequalities will continue to grow. The Government need to wake up to the health and social care crisis, because the effects are already being felt by real people—the people this Government promised to help.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
I pay tribute to all my constituents in Liverpool, West Derby who work in the NHS and social care; I send my solidarity and thanks to them. My speech will focus on defending these workers and on defending our NHS against the Government’s plan for major reorganisation—words that should terrify every citizen in this country who values this wonderful model of socialism. These worrying plans come at the same time as 5 million people are waiting for NHS treatment, and at the same time that NHS staff are exhausted and those same staff are facing a proposed real-terms pay cut.
Last month, I held a meeting with Royal College of Nursing members. They were visibly exhausted, and I came away genuinely worried for their wellbeing. How can this be? I urge the Minister to listen to the concerns of the Save Liverpool Women’s Hospital campaign, Doctors in Unite, EveryDoctor, Keep Our NHS Public, We Own It and many others who are calling for the reorganisation to be halted and for a full public consultation.
The Government’s proposals for the NHS, as set out in their White Paper, could, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) has said, open up privatisation, deregulation and cronyism. They could open up opportunities for private companies to be represented on ICS boards, have a say in what healthcare gets delivered in an area and then provide that service. They could allow for the deregulation of professionals, which would threaten patient safety and have serious implications for the pay, terms and conditions of NHS workers. It is unthinkable that the Government are pushing ahead with these plans after the events of the past year. A person more cynical than me would maybe think that the exhausted state of both the NHS and the nation have created an environment that the Government find ideal for pushing through these changes, which will imperil the public ownership of our NHS even more.
In closing, I ask that this Government find the same values that they discovered earlier in the month, when greedy billionaire capitalists tried to destroy our football heritage, putting profit ahead of the interests of football fans, and the Government reacted. Well, now they are back, but this time it is our NHS that they wish to destroy. I ask the Government to act with equal urgency to protect the greatest jewel in our heritage—to halt these plans for the reorganisation of the NHS and a roll-out of integrated care systems and, instead of pushing ahead with privatisation and threatening the rights of our NHS workers, to give our health service the resources it needs and give our NHS workers a 15% pay rise. They deserve no less.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to close today’s debate and to hear from many hon. Members across the House, including two excellent maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Anum Qaisar-Javed) was a teacher of politics, and I am sure that she will continue to give us all a schooling in the Chamber when she stands up for her constituents as she did today. Even as a granny, I cannot match the lifetime of commitment to politics shown by the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar). We have been on opposite sides of the many campaigns that he has fought, but his love of Wales and the beautiful coastline of his constituency are sentiments that I am sure the whole House will share.
Let me add my voice to those of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have reflected on the role that key workers have played throughout this crisis. I want especially to mention those who work now—as I once did myself—in social care. They have worked tirelessly throughout the pandemic. Too often, they became ill themselves, and some tragically paid with their lives for keeping our public services running.
When the Prime Minister took office, he told us that he had already prepared a plan for social care. Two years later, this Queen’s Speech offered just nine words and the promise that proposals would be “brought forward”. So much for that prepared plan. For the 11 years that the Conservative party has been in power, care workers have been given only the promise of jam tomorrow, and tomorrow never comes. In the meantime, the problems facing the sector have only been worsened by the crisis that our health and social care services face.
As a union rep in social care, I saw at first hand the success of the then Labour Government’s delivering the workforce programme. By working together, we improved the quality of care, increased pay for staff, and reduced hospitalisation and ultimately, therefore, the cost to the taxpayer. It is a false economy not to ensure that people can live as independently as possible in their own homes, with the right support at the right time and in the right place.
Today, however, the workers who were praised by everyone in this Chamber are underpaid and overworked, and that has consequences for us all. If only this Queen’s Speech had contained more than a vague promise of proposals and had a Bill to address that issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) even tabled such a Bill in the last Session. Like other private Members’ Bills in the last Session, it fell not because the House rejected it, but because the Government removed parliamentary time.
If the Minister listens to just one thing I say tonight, I hope it will be my plea to make time in this Session for another such Bill, because the low-paid and insecure nature of employment in social care meant that many carers were not entitled to sick pay. That issue is at the heart of our response to the pandemic. There is simply no substitute for raising the level of sick pay and expanding coverage so that all carers can afford to self-isolate.
A healthier country rests on a healthier economy. That goes not just for workers in health and social care, but all workers. That is why we would have legislated for an immediate £10 an hour minimum wage, banned zero-hours contracts and granted full rights from day one, with entitlements to sick pay and annual leave.
We all remember the disgraceful scenes over the past year, when carers did not receive basic protection during the pandemic. Care workers had significantly higher rates of death, but there has not been a single prosecution of a single employer. The promised employment Bill was supposed to create a single enforcement body to protect health and safety and tackle exploitation at work. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why, in the face of a pandemic, tackling that has not been a priority.
The right hon. Members for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) and for Ashford (Damian Green) both spoke of the challenges of integrating social care and health. Let me remind them and others on the Government Benches that they have no mandate to privatise our NHS. The Conservatives have administered an £8 billion cut to social care budgets since 2010, yet they have made millions of pounds available to enforce voter ID as part of this Gracious Speech. If politics is the language of priorities, that says a lot. There was one case of voter personation fraud in 2019, out of the 59 million votes cast that year. The odds of me winning the national lottery are better, so why would the Government think that this crime is more urgent for new legislation than, for example, violence against women? My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) touched on that issue with her usual passion. I urge Ministers and Government Members to accept her amendment. We will support her in the Lobby if not.
Voting is safe and secure in Britain. Ministers should be ensuring confidence, instead of spreading baseless scare stories. The fact is that this measure will price some voters out of democracy. Millions of people lack voter ID in this country—in particular, older voters, low-income voters and black, Asian and ethnic minority voters. The Conservatives are reversing decades of democratic progress and urgently need to rethink the policy, because it is yet another example of a Government too focused on gimmicks and slogans, rather than real action.
The so-called levelling-up agenda is another such case. When the Prime Minister set up a business council in January, he promised it would level up opportunity for people and businesses across the UK, but just one of its 30 council members was based in the north of England and two in the midlands, while 25 were in London or its commuter zone. In March, the Industrial Strategy Council warned that the levelling-up agenda was unlikely to succeed because there was too much control from the centre. So what did the Prime Minister do? He set up another unit in Whitehall. A senior Cabinet Office official told the Financial Times that there was “widespread cluelessness” about what levelling up actually meant.
The Prime Minister promised that the Queen’s Speech would put “rocket fuel” into the levelling-up agenda, but no one seems to have told the Housing Minister or the Business Minister, who yesterday could not answer even the basic questions. They did not even know that a levelling-up taskforce existed—not so much a flagship as a ghost ship or, as one of the Prime Minister’s own advisers put it, a “slogan without a purpose”. If only the Government had looked over the Atlantic and drawn inspiration from this President and not the last. The Queen’s Speech could have included the £30 billion stimulus package proposed by the shadow Business Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), creating 400,000 new jobs in the industries of the future. It could have built on the lessons of a vaccine roll-out driven by an active interventionist state. Instead, the Government’s investment plan is absolutely tiny in comparison with that of President Biden.
The Queen’s Speech has no employment Bill, and the country will instead face an unemployment bill. Yesterday, the Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), told the House that any criticism of Ministers’ many dodgy deals was anti-business, but I am afraid it is the Prime Minister who famously said exactly what he would like to do to business, and that is one promise that he has kept in the Gracious Address, because he has left business high and dry.
Across the country, small and medium-sized enterprises face a long road to recovery. For months, we have called for a comprehensive plan for British business with debt restructuring at its heart. Instead, we have a Bill that tinkers with state aid and that will leave us investing a fraction of the support that countries such as Germany or Denmark give to their industry.
Many Members across the House have mentioned mental health. We know that the pandemic has left our nation needing more support, and I hope that the Government will take inspiration from the Welsh Labour Government, who have put wellbeing at the heart of their nation.
We face a critical moment as a country. As life begins to return to normal, we are left asking if business as usual is really what we aim to return to. The pandemic has exposed the millions of insecure jobs, the key workers who are underpaid and undervalued even as we applaud them in the streets, the services that they provide collapsing under the strain and an economy that does not work for working people. Last October, the Prime Minister rightly summoned the spirit of our greatest post-war Government and promised to echo Attlee’s plan for a post-war new Jerusalem, but I am afraid he is no Clement Attlee.
This was the moment for our new economic and social settlement to tackle insecurity at work, to meet the climate crisis head-on, to rebuild our public services, to support our businesses and to share wealth and power fairly among our citizens and communities. The British people deserved a Queen’s Speech that met those challenges of the moment, but it has fallen short on every count. This granny knows that it is our grandchildren who will still be paying off the debt that has mounted up over this period. We owe it to them to offer them better-paid jobs, better real affordable homes and a better Government.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I start by welcoming the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) to her new post, and I wish her well in it. I apologise to her that she is facing me giving the wind-up rather than the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster or the Paymaster General. However, given her encounter with the Paymaster General yesterday, she might be quite grateful for that.
Since the previous Queen’s speech in January 2020 we have all collectively been engaged in responding to the biggest crisis since the war, fighting a highly infectious and highly dangerous virus that has caused so much disruption to our economy and our society. Everyone has made huge sacrifices to get this virus under control, and I would like, as I often do on these occasions, to once again put on record my thanks to everyone in the NHS and social care, and the entire British people, for the massive part that everyone has played in that effort.
We now have a way out, thanks to the vaccination programme that is making this country safer every day, and I pay tribute to the Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), for his work on that; but we all recognise that alongside that successful vaccination programme we must all, as a society, learn to live with residual elements of covid for some time to come. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary’s vaccination programme has been the biggest and fastest in British history. Around seven in 10 adults have had a first dose, including my right hon. Friend and me—I resisted any temptation to do so without my top on—and around four in 10 have had a second. As we have rolled out the programme, we have been able carefully to remove some of the restrictions that have been so difficult for us all. Even this week we have been able to restore more of those precious moments, like meeting friends and family indoors or having a pint inside a pub once again. As we do that and take the road to recovery, we must take forward what we have learned about all parts of our health and care system, and draw on the spirit and endeavour that we have seen in our vaccination programme and so many other parts of our response, to make the lasting reforms that will allow us to build back better and make us a healthier nation. There is still a lot to do and there is no time to stand still.
This Queen’s Speech sets out an ambitious, positive programme to seize that opportunity. As my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary set out, we need to tackle waiting lists through our catch-up and recovery plan to support the, I believe, 4.7 million people in England—around February—waiting for treatment. We need to continue to deliver our manifesto commitments of 40 new hospitals and 50,000 more nurses. And we need to level up on the health inequalities that the pandemic has laid bare. To meet that challenge, we have an agenda to transform our health and care system, and to give us those firm foundations that we need to thrive in the years ahead.
We have set out our plans for our health and care Bill to enable greater integration—I saw, in my years serving as a local councillor, as I suspect many colleagues in the House have, the benefits of the NHS, local authorities and social care working ever more closely—to reduce bureaucracy, and to strengthen accountability to this House, so that we can allow staff to get on with their jobs and provide the best possible treatment and care for their patients, and give the NHS and local authorities the tools they need to level up health and care across the country.
We will also give the funding and support to help our NHS recover and deliver the care that people need, bringing the total package of additional covid-19 funding to our healthcare system to £92 billion—on top of the legislation that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary and I passed last year, which will see funding in our NHS increase by £33.9 billion by 2024.
The virus has attacked many parts of our society and our healthcare system. Before returning to some of the key themes in the health space and the care space, I want to mention some of the contributions to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) highlighted the importance of knowing what the bidding criteria will be for the extra eight hospitals that we have committed to bring forward. I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you and my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) came to see me earlier this week to talk about your proposals for Doncaster hospitals. We recognise the eagerness of colleagues to know what that procedure will be, and we will be bringing that forward in the coming weeks. I highlight, of course, that that is dependent on the spending review as well.
Let me turn now to the shadow Secretary of State and some of the points that he raised, which I will endeavour to address. He is a good man, and I know that he will still be basking in the joy of Leicester City’s success on Saturday. He raised some important points. First, he asked where diagnostics were in all of this. I remind him that, in 2019, we brought forward £200 million of additional funding to provide around 300 new diagnostics machines, which have already been bought for our NHS, and we have set out plans for the future for 44 diagnostic hubs.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about capital spending. A total of £3.7 billion in the first tranche has been allocated for our 40 new hospital programmes. He will know, because his constituency neighbours mine, that he is one of the beneficiaries of that, with a new hospital in Leicester. I also point out to the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that Tameside General Hospital has benefited from considerable capital investment —£16.3 million in 2019 thanks to this Conservative Government and, atop that, there is the £450 million of extra money that we brought forward for urgent and emergency care last year, of which around another £2 million is going to Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust. This is a record of investment by this Government in communities up and down our country.
The shadow Secretary of State was pressed a couple of times by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) on whether he supported the use of private sector hospital facilities to help get those waiting lists down. He dodged answering that question. I know that he is a sensible and pragmatic chap, and I know that he will recognise the need, as we do, to use every resource at our disposal to get those waiting list down. I hope that he will not give in to the siren voices of some on the Opposition Benches who, in their comments, have highlighted what I think is a real issue for the Opposition. I am talking about this sort of Orwellian “Animal Farm” type tendency: four legs good, two legs bad; public sector good, private sector bad. It is a binary approach. The reality that we have seen throughout this pandemic is that the key has been partnership working: public, private, and voluntary sectors working together, putting ideology aside to get the best outcomes for patients. All I say is that those who advocate a binary approach are actually letting down our public services. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Leicester South is getting a new hospital.
Let me move on now to other contributions. I turn to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Anum Qaisar-Javed) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar), both of whom gave eloquent, accomplished speeches. I wish that I had been as eloquent in my maiden speech. They are clearly strong advocates for their constituents. I sincerely hope—indeed, I am sure—that we will rightly hear a lot more from them in the future, and that is all to the good of our democracy.
I want to pick up on a couple of other contributions. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is a strong champion of the cause of those with acquired brain injuries and brain injuries, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) came to see me relatively recently to talk about the importance of that group of people in our resetting of NHS services and our recovery of waiting lists. Not only do I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, but I am always happy to meet him to further discuss those issues if he feels that I can be of any assistance.
Turning to some of the key themes of the Queen’s Speech particularly in the health space, the virus, as many hon. and right hon. Members have highlighted, has attacked our population’s mental health just as much as our physical health. On top of the record funding we have already given to mental health—an extra £2.3 billion a year for mental health services by 2023-24, plus the £500 million of additional investment that my hon. Friend the Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health announced recently—we are determined to address the impact of the pandemic on mental health and wellbeing. I know that that objective and that desire, whatever the party politics that sometimes occurs in this Chamber, will be shared across both sides of this House. While we will rightly be held to account, I hope that we can all move forward in seeking to improve services in that space together. I also hope that we will be able to work together in reforming the Mental Health Act 1983, which, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, has not been fully updated for nearly 40 years, and in so doing, give people greater control over their treatment and ensure dignity and respect.
As Members have highlighted, there is also more to do so that everyone receives high-quality, joined-up care in our social care system. The Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend have been absolutely clear in their determination that we will bring forward our proposals for reform of social care this year so that everyone receives the dignified care they deserve within a system that is sustainable. While I hope we can move forward together, I will take no lessons from Labour, which, in its time in power, had, in seeking to address this, one royal commission, two Green Papers, and a spending review in 2007 at which it said that it would be the main focus. That is 13 years of consultations and no achievement. I hesitate to draw attention to it, but some of those years would of course be years when the right hon. Member for Leicester South was at the heart of government in the Treasury and in No. 10.
As we do this work, we will be drawing on the considerable strengths that have played a starring role in this pandemic—the technology, the research, and the life sciences so beloved of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—to drive innovation in our NHS and social care to make life easier for patients and staff alike and to help us all live healthier and happier lives. In that vein, we will, for example, increase public spending on research and development to £22 billion.
It is an honour to make the final contribution to this Queen’s Speech debate on behalf of the Government. We have seen before us a stark choice between a Government with a clear, ambitious vision for our country and its health and an Opposition yet again devoid of ideas, tired and lacking in energy, whose only solution is yet another policy review. That has been the response to the damning verdict of the electorate when they said they were fed up with being taken for granted and let down by Labour. Over the past six days of debate, we have heard about this Government’s ambitious agenda to level up all parts of our country: an agenda to beat this virus and beat it together, and an agenda that will unleash the potential of the whole of the United Kingdom. I commend the Queen’s Speech to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 2 to 4 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
International Development
That the draft Caribbean Development Bank (Tenth Replenishment of the Special Development Fund (Unified)) Order 2021, which was laid before this House on 22 March, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
That the draft Asian Development Bank (Twelfth Replenishment of the Asian Development Fund) Order 2021, which was laid before this House on 22 March, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
Energy
That the draft Electricity Trading (Development of Technical Procedures) (Day-Ahead Market Timeframe) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 22 March, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—(Maggie Throup.)
Question agreed to.
Occupation of East Jerusalem
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I am grateful for the opportunity to present this petition on behalf of residents of Glasgow East. I have had many constituents get in contact with me regarding the Sheikh Jarrah evictions and the recent violence across Jerusalem. I therefore rise to present this petition on behalf of my east end constituents who wish to see the illegal occupation investigated and a peaceful resolution to the ongoing violence.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the residents of Sheikh Jarrah in occupied East Jerusalem are facing dispossession and forced evictions from their homes; further that Israel’s illegal occupation of East Jerusalem has facilitated discriminatory laws against Palestinians who now have little recourse to the law and face the constant threat of dispossession and displacement; further that the SNP strongly condemns all breaches of international law and violence and supports the European Union position of a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders; further that the International Criminal Court must be able to do its duty and urgently conduct a full investigation; further that the Israeli Government must reconsider its position of non-cooperation with the ICC’s impartial probe; and further that this illegal occupation cannot continue with no investigation and repercussions.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to support the International Criminal Courts’ investigation into the illegal occupation of East Jerusalem and to take the necessary steps to reach a peaceful resolution to the current violence.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002665]
Walley’s Quarry: Response of the Environment Agency
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I am grateful to have secured this Adjournment debate. Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I pass my thanks to Mr Speaker not only for granting this debate, but for his advice on the matter of landfills? I know that he has suffered from an issue in his constituency of Chorley as well.
I have raised the issue of Walley’s Quarry many times in this place since I was elected in 2019, including in a debate in Westminster Hall in February 2020, which the Minister will remember, as she responded to me then, and I am grateful for her continued engagement since then—in the Christmas Adjournment debate at the end of last year, and again in the ten-minute rule Bill that I introduced on 9 March, the Landfill Sites (Odorous Emissions) Bill. But I am here yet again because I will not stop representing my constituents on this issue, and I am sorry to report to the House that the situation has worsened even further since those prior mentions of Walley’s Quarry in this place.
In Newcastle-under-Lyme, we are now experiencing not only an environmental catastrophe but a public health emergency. My constituents are genuinely frightened about what is in the air they breathe and the impact it is having on their health and the health of their families. They are also pretty angry that it has come to this, as am I on their behalf. In the interests of time, I will not rehearse the whole storied history today, as a lot of it is on the record in the other debates I mentioned. Instead, I will focus on the newest developments and what has happened in recent months.
I would like to stress that this is not really a local issue. Not only is it so big that it is affecting neighbouring constituencies—I am grateful to see my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) here—but it has now become a national issue, in that Walley’s Quarry generated 85% of all odour complaints in England to the Environment Agency in March. It has also generated national coverage in the newspapers and across the BBC and ITV, and that is because things have moved on considerably this year. There have been five breaches by the operator of its permit, and the Environment Agency has had to issue an enforcement notice, which I will come back to later.
I would like to start by focusing on the impact that this is having on people’s health, and I will quote the letter that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care wrote to the chief executive of the Environment Agency, expressing his “grave concerns” about the current situation, recognising the distress and disruption it is causing to the local community and highlighting how imperative it is that the Environment Agency exercises
“the full range of their regulatory and enforcement powers”
to resolve the problems at the site—a sentiment with which my constituents and I wholeheartedly agree.
I recently conducted a health and impact survey, which I published earlier today on my Facebook page and via my newsletter and Twitter. I had over 1,000 responses in the first 24 hours. The survey is based on over 1,400 responses, and the findings make pretty shocking reading. I shared it with the Minister earlier today, and I have sent it to the various bodies involved. Some 64% of respondents reported a significant or severe impact on their mental health, and that rose to 73% among those living in the areas immediately adjacent to the site: Silverdale, Knutton, Poolfields and Thistleberry. Similarly, 60% of respondents reported a significant or severe impact on their sleep, and 52% said the same about their physical health. Again, the figures are higher for those living closest to the site.
I will quote some of the testimony from residents that I put into the report. Claire from Silverdale says:
“My son is having weekly nose bleeds, my whole family is suffering with dry skin, throat and eyes. We are staying in the house much more than we usually would with the doors and windows shut as the smell outside is horrendous. My heating bill has increased. We only moved into the area in December 2019 and we are greatly regretting this move. We had been saving for 16 years to move into a house like this. It was our dream home and now that has all been ruined.”
Ian from Newcastle says:
“Some days we feel like prisoners in our own home.”
Sandra from Porthill says:
“I have lived in Newcastle for over 30 years and it is frustrating to see this blight causing so many issues and not being able to hold someone responsible for controlling the odour. I’ve shopped in Newcastle town centre for decades and even I don’t want to go there when it stinks.”
Members will understand how difficult this is for me, as a Member of Parliament for Newcastle. We have so much good going on in Newcastle, but a cloud is being cast over us by what is happening at Walley’s Quarry. I have sent the report to the Environment Agency, Public Health England, the borough and county councils, the Secretaries of State concerned and the operator.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the amazing work that he is doing in connection with this landfill site in his constituency and on representing his constituents so fantastically on this issue; I wish him luck with everything he does on it. I, too, have a waste site in my constituency; there has been a fire there for the last three weeks due to illegal dumping on a site that had actually been abandoned. Does my hon. Friend agree that there must be stronger powers for local authorities to intervene when illegal activities are occurring on sites, so that we can better protect our communities in the way he seeks?
Aaron Bell
I thank my hon. Friend; what is going on in her constituency is also completely unacceptable. I should stress that there are other sites in my constituency—illegal waste dumps—that are causing huge problems: one at Doddlespool and one at Bonnie Braes. Again, the Environment Agency appears to be hidebound and unwilling to act in the face of blatant law breaking by people—in one case, someone who has already been convicted. The problems are not unique to what is going on in Silverdale at this legal quarry.
The health concerns that I was raising a moment ago are not just anecdotal but backed up by evidence from local GPs. Only this morning, a hospital consultant was quoted in the press talking about a particularly heart-rending case of a five-year-old child, Matthew Currie.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend very much for bringing this really important matter to the House. Although the quarry lies within his constituency, the effects are very much felt in Stoke-on-Trent Central, particularly where we border with Newcastle-under-Lyme, in Basford, Hartshill, Penkhull and Trent Vale.
In addition to supporting all my hon. Friend’s comments, I would like to make the Minister aware of a concern raised by the Royal Stoke University Hospital, based in my constituency and only two and a half miles from the quarry, about hydrogen sulphide emanating from the quarry. It has caused a poisonous toxic gas with an eggy smell. I know that my hon. Friend agrees that that is deeply concerning. My constituents and I join him in calling on the Minister to take immediate action, both to mitigate the worrying environmental and public health impacts and to find a lasting solution to the issue.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I did not interrupt the hon. Lady because we are trying to get back to some kind of normality, but I have to make the point that that was a very long intervention—a very interesting one, of course.
Aaron Bell
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) for that intervention; I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), neither of whom can be here today. The support I have had from all Stoke MPs on this matter has been greatly appreciated.
I stress the fact that the odour is now reaching into Stoke—up to Talke in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South can smell it in his own house, over six miles away. The problem, if anything, is getting worse. I also have testimony from people who work at the hospital explaining how damaging it is for both patients and staff.
On 27 April, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) held a Westminster Hall debate. It was about air quality in London, but nevertheless 126 of my constituents submitted some really moving testimony; I thank the House of Commons engagement team for providing it to me. Mary wrote:
“The effect on mental health is worrying. Many people feel trapped in their homes, which often are filled with the dreadful stench. Can’t open windows or enjoy going out into gardens. Depression and isolation are quite profound—people are feeling at their wits end and some are expressing suicidal thoughts. We are desperate for it to be resolved.”
Thomas said:
“It’s made me and my whole family physically sick, it’s made my eyes sore to the touch, I cough constantly and live with a headache most of the time. I live with landfill gases that are ruining my life.”
We can agree that no one should have to live like that. They are not exaggerating—I have been out to smell it for myself on many occasions. At 3 am after the election count, I went out on to the Galingale estate, which has the worst of it—it was absolutely appalling. I do not know how anyone woken up by that landfill at that time would get back to sleep again.
The operator and the Environment Agency have been given years of warning about this issue, which has been repeatedly flagged—before I was elected, by campaigners such as Councillor Derrick Huckfield, by me in this place, and by residents. The concerns were growing. All that has sometimes been dismissed by the operator as a social media campaign; I am sorry to have heard the same at times from the Environment Agency. The problem is real, and I will keep pushing about it until we see stronger and tougher action.
On the Environment Agency, first there was a report before I was elected—a previous monitoring exercise. It was a very weak report that did not even identify the source of the odour, which understandably damaged my constituents’ trust—they know perfectly well where it is coming from. In September last year, I wrote to Sir James Bevan calling for fresh monitoring on the back of the complaints that I was receiving in my inbox. But that was not forthcoming—it was not felt that that would be useful at the time. We can draw a conclusion about where we have got to now; I will explain that in a moment. Had the Environment Agency taken my warnings more seriously back then, perhaps the current crisis could have been forestalled or minimised.
When it comes to the current crisis, I feel that the Environment Agency has been more concerned with its own reputation than with my town of Newcastle-under-Lyme. It does not do Silverdale any good to be called the UK’s smelliest village, as it was on 30 April by The Sun. We take no pride in the news coverage that we have generated, but there is a lot of it. We have been covered in The Guardian, The Independent, The Sun, the Sunday Mirror, the Mail on Sunday, Radio 4’s “Today” and the “Jeremy Vine” show, to name just a few.
There are many more positive stories that I would rather be talking about instead—all the investment coming into Newcastle-under-Lyme as we build back better; the future high streets fund; the towns fund; and Newcastle College getting through to the final round of becoming an institute of technology. Those are the stories I want to be talking about in this place. I do not want to be talking about stinking landfill, but I will keep talking about it until we get it sorted.
There have been failings of the Environment Agency over the past year. It eventually did install the monitoring equipment, in February. The installation preceded the worst weekend that we have yet experienced—the weekend of 26 to 28 February. There were over 2,000 complaints to the council that weekend and over 1,400 to the Environment Agency directly. There would have been more, but people could not get through on the lines. However, after that weekend it turned out that the monitoring equipment had not actually been switched on, so there was no record of it, and because the Environment Agency thought it was switched on, it did not send anybody out to substantiate it, so we have no empirical evidence at all to substantiate what I believe was the single worst weekend we have experienced, other than the number of complaints. That is an astonishing dereliction of duty by the Environment Agency. I would laugh if it were not so serious.
The Environment Agency has berated my constituents for all the calls they have made to its call centre. It encouraged people to email instead, but the email address fell over and broke a couple of weekends ago, so people had to go back to calling in again. I am sorry if my constituents’ complaints are inconvenient, but it is imperative that the Environment Agency understands the scale of the problem.
We come to what has happened this year. The Environment Agency did issue an enforcement notice against the operator. It also found five breaches of the permit, one of which was significant, and set a deadline of 30 April for the capping of cell 1 and the temporary capping of cell 2—there are four cells. It was expected—and I was told on a call with the Environment Agency—that those mandated works should bring about a significant improvement in odour levels fairly quickly after 30 April. The operator got the capping done with minutes to spare, but, if anything, since 30 April the opposite has occurred. Indeed, we are getting reports from further away than ever, including places such as Madeley in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash).
Not unreasonably, the EA’s priority is to address the odour before taking punitive action against the operator. However, 20 days on from that deadline, we have no idea of the action that it intends to take to punish the operator for its many failings. I think that, in advance of that enforcement notice, the operator jumped before it was pushed by voluntarily suspending tipping, but it has now gone back to tipping without any explanation as to why we have so much odour. Why will the Environment Agency not suspend operations until it has figured out what is going on?
The Environment Agency now proudly says that it is auditing the loads before they go into the tip—seemingly for the first time. Six loads have been turned away in the past week. How many similar loads have not been turned away in the past? What exactly is in this landfill? It is hard to believe that it is only now that Red’s customers are sending inappropriate waste to the tip and that this has never happened before.
I will be careful here, Madam Deputy Speaker, but multiple contractors and employees of the company have made allegations to me that I believe are criminal in nature. Investigations are ongoing, so I am not going to repeat those allegations verbatim, but if they are true, Red has serious questions to answer about what has happened in the past at this site. I have passed the allegations on to the Environment Agency’s crime team. I encourage anyone listening to this debate who has evidence that may be important to come forward and discuss it with that environmental crime team, which is separate from the operations team and staffed by former policemen and policewomen. I have had personal assurance from them that they will carefully consider any evidence brought to them, that all allegations will be taken seriously and that they will pursue all credible leads.
As for the operator, it has stopped answering my letters. It did not answer my letter of 22 February or an open letter of 19 March. It will not answer questions that need answers or say what is causing the problem. Either it does not know or it will not say, and I honestly do not know which is worse. It has offered no plan for making things right and compensating those affected. Its communications are a travesty. In fact, the chief method of communication with some of my residents appears to be via lawyers’ letters or a discredited residents association that does not speak for any of the residents in the area. It has refused to publicly stream its liaison committee; understandably, councillors from both parties have felt unable to participate on those terms, given the present crisis.
Instead, the operator has been on its social media celebrating its fast-growing profits and its appearance on The Sunday Times profit track list. In the year to December 2019, it claimed profits of £6 million. I believe that those profits were made at the expense of my constituents’ health and wellbeing, and I hope that the company is setting them aside for remedying the issues with the site and putting things right with the community. It alleges that it has found an alternative explanation for the hydrogen sulphide—disused mineworking—but it cannot or will not corroborate this. It will not even share the basis for these claims with the EA, and the Coal Authority has now said publicly that it has found no evidence at all for this claim.
I can only conclude that the operator is trying to muddy the waters and evade its responsibilities. It misrepresented the Environment Agency by saying that it had consulted it about the resumption of tipping. The Environment Agency had to clarify that it was only notified. To quote the excellent letter that my friend Councillor Alan White, the leader of Staffordshire County Council, sent to the operator on 14 May, “The operator must accept that it has moral responsibilities as well as legal ones.” Finally, in the past month, it has changed its name, from Red Industries RM to Walley’s Quarry Ltd. I am sure that that is because of the damage this is doing to its brand, but I say to it here: it can change its name, but it cannot change the facts of this case, cannot change its culpability and cannot change its liability
Let me come to the data we have seen from the monitoring that has been put in—I am grateful for the monitoring. The 30-minute data—it shows 30 minutes at a time—from the Galingale View monitoring site, which has had the worst of it, showed that in March odour levels were above the World Health Organisation annoyance threshold for 38% of the monitoring period. This was frequently the case at night and in the early evenings, so it was stopping people getting people to sleep or waking them up early. There was a peak of 1,200 micrograms per cubic metre, which is over 160 times the annoyance threshold, which is 7. On that “worst weekend” we had at the end of February the level was probably even higher, but we will never know. As for the 24-hour data, on which the public health test is assessed, there is a much higher limit of 150 over 24 hours, and that was breached twice in March. I do not believe that has ever happened in a landfill in the UK before. Yet the Public Health England commentary on this March data said:
“Based on the current data up to the end of March we would stress that any risk to long-term physical health is likely to be small, however we cannot completely exclude a risk to health from pollutants in the area. Short-term health effects may be experienced such as irritation to the eyes, nose and throat. Individuals with pre-existing respiratory conditions may be more susceptible to these effects.”
I am struggling to get my head around PHE thinking that it is okay for people to experience headaches, nausea or dizziness for hours at a time—that is not normal. We have gone from a position that I saw in ministerial written answers last year—that
“the level and type of odour arising from such operations should not be causing annoyance”—
to one now that tacitly accepts not only annoyance, but minor, repeated health issues. That is completely unacceptable; it feels as though we are a lobster being slowly boiled. Residents are supposed to accept the premise that if there are no long-term health consequences, it is somehow acceptable that we have these short-term ones. That is a creeping normalising of a completely unacceptable situation—I believe the modern term is “gaslighting”. We are being gaslit and gassed at the same time.
So what about what the council is doing? Not unreasonably, many constituents have inquired about the possibility of Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council, ably led by my friend Simon Tagg, acquiring a statutory nuisance or abatement notice. However, as the Minister will know, that is a challenging process. First, it would require a lot of work on the part of council officers to make the case. The council has been hamstrung by the EA’s own failings and it has raised those directly with the Minister in a letter sent yesterday by its chief executive, Martin Hamilton. Nevertheless, the scale of the problems means this is not something the council can ignore and it is moving towards a position of serving an abatement notice, in the light of the suffering of borough residents.
I hope the Secretary of State would give the necessary permission for a prosecution of that abatement notice, should it prove necessary. If the council needs to take that action, it will be because the EA has failed. It should not fall to a borough council to spend £70,000 of local taxpayers’ money on legal advice and landfill experts, or to ask its staff to work around the clock because the performance of a national agency has been so inadequate. Yesterday’s letter, which the Minister will have, requests an independent inquiry into the performance of the EA over the long term, and I completely back the council on that. Why has the EA ignored every warning sign until it was too late? That is not how a responsible regulator should behave.
In conclusion, the message from me and my constituents is clear: enough is enough. Minister, put some extra funding into this emergency situation if necessary and step in if the EA continues to mismanage the situation. It has been repeatedly too slow to react and behind the curve. She should install fresh leadership if that is what is necessary, but we must have an urgent resolution—we cannot carry on like this. As no one, least of all the operator or the regulator, seems to understand the root cause of the problem, there is no reasonable conclusion to the saga of Walley’s Quarry that does not involve it being shut down. Ultimately, the site needs to be capped off.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
As ever, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) on securing this debate and thank him for his ongoing work on this issue, which he has been assiduous about in every respect, be it on his website, with his surveys, which we have heard all about, on social media, and in liaising with all those involved and the press. Indeed, he has kept me well informed throughout. I have listened to what he has been saying and had a good look at that survey. I fully sympathise with local residents who have been suffering in the way that he outlines. He painted a very clear picture of what many people have been going through, as have other hon. Friends here tonight.
No landfill will ever be completely odour-free, but odour arising from such operations should not cause serious offence. The environmental permitting system operated by the Environment Agency is there to regulate the waste sector in England. It issues permits, which include requirements for odour management plans, as my hon. Friend knows. The EA sets out guidance on how odour monitoring should be carried out and the required competency of staff and equipment to be used when determining a permit application. The EA considers the proximity of the proposed activity to local residents and sets permit conditions accordingly. Local authorities draw up local plans to identify potential sites for waste facilities and then deal with relevant planning applications. Determination of applications takes account of likely impact of activities, including cumulative impacts on the local environment, communities and the economy.
This landfill site, operated by Walley’s Quarry Ltd, previously known as Red Industries, as has been pointed out, which bought the site from Lafarge in 2016, was given planning permission in 1997 through the call-in process, admittedly in the face of local opposition. At some point, material, possibly unpermitted plasterboard waste, was deposited which is now causing significant odour problems by emitting hydrogen sulphide gas. I think we all remember what that smells like from our chemistry lessons at school. It is the rotting egg smell.
On the EA’s enforcement powers, where an operator is not complying with their permit and there are issues of poor performance, the EA has a series of options at its disposal, from offering advice, guidance, civil sanctions, stop notices, suspension and revocation of the permit. Monitoring odour levels from a landfill is challenging. There are no numerical limits for odour of particular gases in landfill permits. That is due—I asked about this in particular—to the variability of gas composition and how it disperses. The EA, therefore, uses a condition in environmental permits that is based on offence to the senses. The odour is assessed by the level of offence it causes to the EA officer. To demonstrate non-compliance, an EA officer receiving a report of odour will attend the location, confirm the odour is actually coming from the site, and assess whether the site is complying with its odour management plan or doing something that is contrary to best available techniques—that is, the equipment used. This approach has evolved over a number of years following prosecutions and case law derived from those cases. If non-compliance is confirmed, EA officers can take action in line with its enforcement and statutory policy.
In terms of this quarry, as I said, I have huge sympathy for the thousands of residents who have raised complaints. The EA has an absolute priority to reduce odour from the site and it has been working with local partners, including my hon. Friend—I think he will admit that—and the whole community, to sort out the situation. Undoubtedly, the problem has got a lot worse in recent months. From air quality monitoring data from 2017, 2018 and 2019, no World Health Organisation guidelines were exceeded and annoyance levels were only exceeded for about 1% of the time. While EA site visits and monitoring increased in that time, no significant compliance issues were found. However, when complaints escalated significantly in December 2020—my hon. Friend was assiduous in pointing this out—the EA’s activity monitoring at the site did increase. It made 17 visits and nearly 50 odour assessments, so I do not think it is right to suggest that it has not done what it should have done. It has put in a great deal of work. Significant non-compliance issues have been identified and the enforcement notice was issued in March. The EA is using its regulatory powers to the full and complies with the regulators’ code. Four air quality monitoring units have now been installed close to the site and are taking measurements; they will be there at least until the end of August.
The EA is working very closely with Public Health England to understand the health impacts. Data monitoring will obviously be crucial. Public Health England is assessing the situation against World Health Organisation guidelines, looking at the potential health risks. My hon. Friend mentioned the 24-hour period from 7 to 8 March when the concentrations of hydrogen sulphide exceeded the WHO’s 24-hour health-based guidelines. However, Public Health England stated that the analysis
“does not indicate any serious impacts to long-term physical health”,
but fully accepted that
“some people may experience…nausea, headaches or dizziness.”
It recognised that
“persistent, unpleasant odour can affect people’s mental wellbeing”,
which my hon. Friend referred to, and that it can cause stress and anxiety, which is completely understandable—a lot of these points are highlighted in my hon. Friend’s survey. At the moment, air quality monitoring shows that, although the levels of odorous gas around the site are not exceeding the WHO health-based limits, they do regularly exceed the WHO annoyance guidance limits.
I take my hon. Friend’s survey seriously. I also want to flag up that the local authority and Public Health England are now conducting a formal health survey, which I think will be very useful for building that evidence: they can look at my hon. Friend’s survey and add their own data. Details are on the website, and any local resident is encouraged to take part. I think that that will be helpful.
The EA’s enforcement notice, which was issued to the company in March, required it to cap the site with a harmless material to reduce the gas escaping. That was completed within the timescale required. The EA has also required the operator to install further gas management equipment, such as a flare to burn off gas, which is actually being tested this very week. It is assessing a new odour reduction plan and a surface emissions report, which the company is being required to produce. New gas extraction wells have also been installed, so my hon. Friend will agree that a great deal of work is ongoing and it should start to reduce the odours over the next few weeks. It does take a bit of time—it is not instant—so I urge him to give it a bit more time.
In addition, although the operator is now accepting waste, following its voluntary suspension in March, the EA is now actively auditing the waste supply chain to the site to check what is going in. Only waste that is in accordance with the permit is being deposited. The operator has agreed to check every load; indeed, six loads have been stopped and rejected. That is a welcome measure to try to stop any further gas-producing materials such as gypsum getting into the site.
It is quite clear that the levels of H2S, which is usually a minor gas coming out of landfill sites that disappears after a while, are exceptional on this site—that is without doubt. The EA is assessing the evidence from the site to consider what else it could do. It also has a national project under way to better understand the effects that hydrogen sulphide materials such as plasterboard are creating when inappropriately deposited in sites.
I hear my hon. Friend’s vociferous calls for operations to be suspended at the site, but, actually, that would not secure the reduction in the odour of the gas. The changes to the gas management being made at the moment by the operator, overseen by the EA, are the things that ought to help to reduce the gas. The EA’s priority is to reduce the gas, hold the operator to account and bring the site back into compliance.
The EA wants to continue to update its dedicated website on the site. I have looked at all the material that the EA shares with locals. I think my hon. Friend would admit that it has worked very hard on that messaging, and it will continue to do that. That is really important to engage the local community. I am aware that, unfortunately, there has also been some intimidating behaviour towards EA staff and I urge respect where everyone is working together.
I am going to get to my closing remarks—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I have to stop the Minister. It would be useful if she has a final sentence. We are past the time allowed, but it will be somewhat inconclusive if she cannot give her final sentence.
Rebecca Pow
Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thought I had until 8.6 pm—I was carefully watching the clock.
I will just summarise. I thank my hon. Friend for his assiduous work. I am keeping my eye on it. We are holding their feet to the fire; we have to reduce the odours from this site. Thank you for your time, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will continue to have a really close look at what is going on at this site.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Con) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Alistair Carmichael (rt. hon.) (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con) | Mr William Wragg |
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) | Ben Everitt |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP) | Hywel Williams |
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) | Hywel Williams |
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Heappey (Wells) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Howell (Henley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC) | Hywel Williams |
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Owen Thompson |
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) | Peter Aldous |
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) | Hywel Williams |
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) | Mark Harper |
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Draft Combined Heat and Power Quality Assurance (Temporary Modifications) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing and to sit only in the marked seats. I think everyone has adhered to that. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has deemed that masks should be worn in Committee—apart from by me; I might have to speak at any second, so I am exempt. Our Hansard colleagues would appreciate it if Members could pass on their speeches to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Combined Heat and Power Quality Assurance (Temporary Modifications) Regulations 2021.
The draft regulations were laid before the House on 18 March 2021. The combined heat and power quality assurance scheme has been in place since 2001 to certify highly energy-efficient combined heat and power plants across the UK. Combined heat and power plants can be fuelled by natural gas or renewable fuels and are up to 30% more efficient than conventional methods of generation as they make use of both the heat and electricity that they produce.
To incentivise the deployment of combined heat and power plants, certification through the quality assurance scheme enables access to a variety of financial benefits. More than 1,400 sites across the UK certify their combined heat and power plants through this voluntary assurance scheme, giving them access to more than £500 million in benefits each year. Combined heat and power plants are a vital technology for some of our most valued but energy-intensive industries. They will play a key role in our move towards net zero emissions due to the variety of benefits that they bring to an increasingly renewables-based electricity network.
As the covid pandemic hit, restrictions on businesses meant that they were unable to operate their combined heat and power plants effectively and risked not being able to recertify as normal through the combined heat and power quality assurance scheme as a result. Two key issues affected their operation. First, for some industrial processes, demand for power remained but heat customers had shut down, meaning useful heat was being wasted. Secondly, there were reports of significantly reduced quality of biomass supply, which negatively impacted the volume required to meet demand. These issues impacted the operational data that is used in the certification process, presenting a risk for operators that they may not be able to certify for their usual level of benefits in 2021.
The draft regulations therefore amend issue 8 of the scheme’s standard to allow for a temporary revision to the certification process to allow operators to use their unimpacted 2019 operational data for their 2021 certification, instead of impacted 2020 operational data. This will allow affected operators to access appropriate levels of financial benefits in 2021 based on their energy use, avoiding further covid-19-related financial impacts to key businesses and industries in the UK. The regulatory amendments will be in place for 12 months following the draft instrument’s coming into force.
The Government do not intend to extend the amendment to the quality assurance scheme’s processes for further years as it is expected that businesses have now had the opportunity to adapt their processes. We hope that there will be no additional extended periods of restrictions related to covid-19 for the rest of 2021 and beyond. The change to the combined heat and power quality assurance certification process will avoid increased operational costs being passed on to consumers and will support vulnerable businesses and industries in the UK to avoid further financial impacts and potential job losses caused by the covid-19 pandemic.
This is a necessary change due to the important role that combined heat and power technology will have on our route to decarbonising our energy use. Stakeholders affected by covid-19 restrictions should be supported. This is a proportionate, transparent and widely supported administrative amendment that will avoid further financial impacts to crucial, vulnerable businesses and industries in the UK. I therefore commend the draft regulation to the Committee.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Dr Huq. I am grateful to have been able to get here almost on time. I apologise for the discourtesy of not actually being here on time. I reflected on my journey from Waterloo station to here—I literally ran the whole distance—that I was doing all that just to say that we thoroughly agree with the statutory instrument in front of us—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
This proportionate and measured administrative change will ensure that quality CHP arrangements can continue, and that those taking part in such schemes, which are, by and large, the most innovative and best organised combined heat and power organisations, are able to use their 2019 data for the purpose of qualifying for the next stage in the quality assurance proposals, and indeed for the renewable heat incentive and its successors. It is necessary to do that because of the destruction caused by the pandemic and the problems that several such plants have experienced in getting their data properly organised for the present period.
To disqualify or disadvantage good schemes because they have not been able to get their data in on time would be a great injustice. This measure sets out a way to deal with that, while maintaining the proper regulation and arrangements for quality assurance for the future. I wholeheartedly support the proposal, and I see from the consultation carried out that it was endorsed thoroughly by the industry associations. We might therefore say that there is not much to talk about, other than to wish this proposal every success in ensuring that quality assurance is maintained.
I would just like to ask the Minister a question to which I think I know the answer with reasonable certainty. I am sure she will be delighted to hear that this will not entail a further letter to me, as has been the case on previous occasions. What is happening with the wider proposals, which are very relevant to the good-quality schemes that are taking part in CHPQA activities? What is happening on the wider scheme to regulate the combined heat and power industry properly for the future? The Minister will recall that we had a Westminster Hall debate about that very recently, in which she was able to give some assurances about what is happening on regulation.
I see that nothing has appeared in the Queen’s Speech on the legislation that might be necessary to undertake this regulation, perhaps as part of a larger energy Bill. I understand that a draft energy Bill may be presented in the next Session, but there is no proposal to legislate in this Session, as far as regulation is concerned. We do not need to rehearse the reasons for good regulation. Among other things, good regulation of the CHP sector will ensure that the best become even better and the worst come into the fold, as far as overall regulation is concerned. That is a real issue, in terms of the delivery of heating schemes, which is very much the subject of this SI.
My first thought is that it may be possible to regulate CHP schemes by way of secondary, rather than primary, legislation. Will the Minister investigate whether such a regulation route might be a better way of proceeding, rather than waiting for something perhaps two or three years hence to come through in primary legislation?
I emphasise the need to do so, because of the enormous expansion that I think both the Minister and I anticipate for CHP district heating schemes in the future. It is essential that we have proper regulation for that future expansion and for new operations coming into the existing scheme, so that they are included in the best possible way, making the best possible use of the incentives and other assistance that comes there way as a result of being part of the scheme, and which will enable them to be much better CHP district heating schemes in future. That is a very friendly nudge to ask the Minister to get on with, as quickly as possible, a full range of regulation and undertakings to make this SI, important though it is for the immediate present, fit for the future as well.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank the hon. Member for being here. We were hoping he would be, because, as ever, he brings his insightful contribution to the subject—I take “nudge”, but would also say “challenging”.
The hon. Gentleman would like me to be more precise on when the next energy Bill will appear. Sadly, I cannot be precise at this point, but I can reassure him that there is much work and activity ongoing on exactly that, because, as he rightly points out, there are many areas of change going on as we move towards a net zero energy system, which will require a great deal of work.
I am happy to take away the question of whether we want to look at secondary legislation for CHP. I commit to doing that with the Department, so he may, after all, get a response, and we may also generate more communication and correspondence as a result. I will take that away to investigate what it might look like.
The statutory instrument will support the impacted combined heat and power operators following the 2020 covid restrictions. Support in this way is crucial, as combined heat and power technology holds significant opportunity to help decarbonise energy use. The regulations will help maintain valuable jobs in green industries. Those jobs would be lost without support and efficient technologies would be abandoned in favour of carbon-intensive alternatives, which is absolutely the opposite of what we want to do. I commend the draft regulations to the House.
The Chair
Time for the last nail-biting moment in the Committee this afternoon.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Home Department
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Written Statements
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Post Office Update
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
Following the Prime Minister’s commitment on 26 February 2020 and the ministerial statements of 10 June 2020 and 30 September 2020, the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry was established as a non-statutory inquiry. In accordance with the terms of section 15 of the Inquiries Act, the Government have now given notice to convert the inquiry into a statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 on 1 June 2021 and at the same time amend the inquiry’s terms of reference, as set out below.
Scope of the inquiry
Government want to be fully assured that through the inquiry there is a public summary of the failings associated with Post Office Ltd’s Horizon IT system. The inquiry will draw on the findings made by Mr Justice Fraser from the Bates and others v. Post Office Limited Group litigation, in particular judgment (No. 3) “Common issues” and judgment (No. 6) “Horizon issues”, the judgments of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in R v. Hamilton and others, and other judgments in which convictions have been quashed. It will consider all other relevant evidence, listen to those that have been affected, understand what went wrong, and assess whether lessons have been learned and whether concrete changes have taken place, or are under way, at Post Office Ltd.
The inquiry shall:
A: Understand and acknowledge what went wrong in relation to Horizon, leading to the civil proceedings in Bates and others v. Post Office Ltd and the quashing of criminal convictions, by drawing from the judgments of Mr Justice Fraser in Bates and others, the judgments of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in R v. Hamilton and others, other judgments in which convictions have been quashed, affected postmasters’ experiences and any other relevant evidence in order to identify what key lessons must be learned for the future.
B: Build upon the findings of Mr Justice Fraser and the judgments of the criminal courts specified in A above by obtaining all available relevant evidence from Post Office Ltd, Fujitsu, BEIS and UKGI to establish a clear account of 1) the implementation and failings of Horizon over its lifecycle and 2) Post Office Ltd’s use of information from Horizon when taking action against persons alleged to be responsible for shortfalls.
C: Assess whether Post Office Ltd has learned the lessons from the criticisms made by Mr Justice Fraser in his judgments following the “Common issues” and “Horizon issues” trials and those identified by affected postmasters and has delivered or made good progress on the organisational and cultural changes necessary to ensure a similar case does not happen in the future.
D: Assess whether the commitments made by Post Office Ltd within the mediation settlement—including the historical shortfall scheme—have been properly delivered.
E: Assess whether the processes and information provided by Post Office Ltd to postmasters are sufficient:
i. to enable both parties to meet their contractual obligations
ii. to enable postmasters to run their businesses. This includes assessing whether Post Office Ltd’s related processes such as recording and resolving postmaster queries, dispute handling, suspension and termination are fit for purpose. In addition, determine whether the quality of the service offer for postmasters and their relationship with Post Office Ltd has materially improved since the conclusions reached by Mr Justice Fraser.
F: Examine the historic and current governance and whistleblowing controls in place at Post Office Ltd, identify any relevant failings, and establish whether current controls are now sufficient to ensure that failings leading to the issues covered by this inquiry do not happen again.
The inquiry will consider only those matters set out in the preceding sections A-F. The inquiry will not consider any issue which is outside the scope of the powers conferred upon the inquiry by the Inquiries Act 2005. The Horizon group damages settlement (albeit the inquiry may examine the events leading to the settlement), and/or the engagement or findings of any other supervisory or complaints mechanisms, including in the public sector, are outside the inquiry’s scope.
Governance
The inquiry will be led by Sir Wyn Williams FLSW, as the chair of the inquiry. There will be an inquiry secretariat and Sir Wyn will be supported by up to four assessors. These assessors will support Sir Wyn Williams by providing advice on the sources, content and interpretation of evidence received as appropriate. They may also provide independent scrutiny and challenge in relation to emerging findings and recommendations.
Publication report date
The inquiry should make any recommendations it sees fit, including actions that may, in its view, be appropriate as a result of its findings. The inquiry will aim to submit its findings to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in autumn 2022. The final report will be published by the Secretary of State and the Government will respond in due course.
[HCWS40]
PrivatBank (Recognition of Third-Country Resolution Action) Instrument 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I wish to update the House on the steps that HM Treasury has taken in regard to public joint stock company commercial bank PrivatBank.
On 14 May 2021, I approved the Bank of England’s decision to recognise the bail-in by the National Bank of Ukraine and the Ukrainian authorities between 18 and 20 December 2016 of four English law governed loans made by UK SPV Credit Finance plc to PrivatBank, in accordance with section 89H of the Banking Act 2009. The Bank of England instrument which gave effect to the recognition decision will be laid before Parliament today and has been published on the Bank of England website.
The Bank of England and HM Treasury have independently reached the determination that the bail-in of the four loans was broadly comparable in anticipated results and objectives to an equivalent UK resolution, and that none of the conditions for refusal to recognise within section 89H(4) of the Banking Act 2009 was satisfied.
Decisions over whether to recognise a third-country resolution action are regarded by the Financial Stability Board as a key aspect of an effective cross-border resolution regime. Under UK law, the Bank of England is required to make a decision on whether or not to recognise resolution actions when requested to do so by a third-country resolution authority. That decision can only be made with the approval of HM Treasury.
[HCWS39]
First Implementation Plan for Genome UK
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Lord Bethell of Romford, has today made the following written ministerial statement:
Last September, after months of hard work across the UK genomics community, I was delighted to launch Genome UK—the UK’s genomic healthcare strategy.
Ultimately, the strategy set out a vision to create the most advanced genomic healthcare system in the world to deliver better healthcare at a lower cost.
Thanks to achievements made over the last 70 years, from the discovery of the structure of DNA to the completion of the 100,000 Genomes Project, the UK is rightly recognised as a world-leader in genomics.
But for the UK to remain at the forefront of international competition in genomic research and healthcare, and attract investment, it is essential that we start to deliver on the commitments set out in our strategy.
I am therefore delighted to inform the House of the launch of the 2021-22 Genome UK implementation plan. This publication will demonstrate the great strides we have already made in delivering on our vision and outlines the clear actions we will progress over the next year.
This implementation plan has been agreed by members of the National Genomics Board, a group of senior life sciences sector stakeholders, which I chair with Sir John Bell. Over the last six months, we have engaged with our delivery partners and key stakeholders to identify projects and programmes that can be delivered during 2021-22.
We have drafted a diverse and ambitious package of actions and as part of this, I am pleased to announce the following:
A major drive, led by Genomics England, to improve the diversity of genomic data, addressing the historic under-representation of data from minority ethnic communities in genomic datasets, which results in health inequalities. The work will include widespread community engagement alongside sequencing and analytic tool development.
The roll-out of whole genome sequencing to patients with a suspected rare disease and certain cancers in the NHS Genomic Medicine Service, in partnership with Genomics England. This is a truly transformational milestone for patients, and for our overarching one million genomes commitment—our ambition to sequence 500,000 genomes in the NHS and 500,000 in UK Biobank, creating the most advanced genomic healthcare system in the world.
Proof of concept work, led by Genomics England in partnership with the NHS, to deliver the first phase of a next-generation approach for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer, integrating multiple data sources and new technologies to support faster and more comprehensive genomic testing for cancer in line with the NHS long term plan.
Our Future Health (formerly known as the Accelerating Detection of Disease challenge) will help drive developments in the next generation of diagnostics and clinical tools—including the evaluation of polygenic risk scores (PRS), drug discovery, and smart clinical trials. In 2021, Our Future Health will pilot participant recruitment processes to build towards their five million participant ambition. Our Future Health will conduct feedback pilot studies in 2022 to test approaches to deliver health-related information, including PRS, to participants.
NIHR, MRC and Wellcome Trust will, over the next five years, provide funding to the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH) to develop standards and policies for sharing genomic and related health data. GA4GH aims to ensure its standards are easily accessible and ready for use by global genomic programs and data sharing initiatives. It will proactively engage stakeholders at national and organisational level to drive uptake of GA4GH standards.
Given that Genome UK runs over 10 years, some of its 45 commitments are either long term or will be delivered through cumulative action over the coming years. Implementation of the strategy will therefore be phased, so we have mainly focused on actions taking place this year. Genomics is a fast-moving field, and a phased approach will allow us to review our commitments and reflect emerging science and the latest research findings. Our intention is to align future iterations of this plan with Government funding cycles.
These commitments are just some of the first important steps on the journey to realising the vision set out in Genome UK. However, achieving all our objectives will require new investment over the next decade, with continued collaboration and funding from the public, private and charity sectors becoming ever more important.
Genomic research and innovation will transform healthcare in this country to benefit patients and drive our economic recovery. Given our reputation as a world-leader in genomic healthcare and research, it has the potential to play a key role in delivering our wider goal of becoming a global life sciences.
This iteration of the implementation plan is largely England-focused, but some aspects are UK-wide. For example, the world-leading research programs, including COG-UK, the consortium which delivered large scale covid genome sequencing. We have therefore developed this plan with the support of our partners in the devolved Administrations.
We will continue to work with our partners from the devolved Administrations, the NHS, industry and research, via the National Genomics Board and other venues, to ensure that we deliver on our goal to create the most advanced genomic healthcare system in the world. I also want to emphasise that engagement and dialogue with the healthcare workforce, patients and the diverse UK population, will be at the heart of the journey to reach the vision set out in the strategy.
[HCWS41]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
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. The time limit for the following debate is one hour.
Combined Heat and Power Quality Assurance (Temporary Modifications) Regulations 2021
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
That the Grand Committee do consider the Combined Heat and Power Quality Assurance (Temporary Modifications) Regulations 2021
Relevant documents: 51st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2019–21
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, the combined heat and power quality assurance scheme has been in place since 2001 to certify highly energy-efficient combined heat and power plants across the UK. Combined heat and power plants can be fuelled by natural gas or renewable fuels and are up to 30% more efficient than conventional methods of generation by making use of both the heat and the electricity they produce. To incentivise deployment of CHP, certification through the quality assurance scheme enables access to a variety of financial benefits which form part of the business model for CHP owners. Over 1,400 sites across the UK certify their combined heat and power plants through this voluntary assurance scheme, accessing over £500 million in benefits each year.
Combined heat and power plants are a vital technology for some of our most valued but energy-intensive industries. They will play a key role in our move towards net-zero emissions due to the variety of benefits they bring to an increasingly renewables-based electricity network and the ability to adapt in the near future to hydrogen fuel or carbon capture and usage technology. Both hydrogen and carbon capture and usage will be crucial in the decarbonisation of the UK’s energy use, particularly for energy-intensive industrial processes. Therefore, operators of combined heat and power plants should be appropriately supported, as they will support us to decarbonise.
The initial Covid-19 lockdown restrictions in 2020 impacted a large number of businesses. Multiple CHP users, across a variety of sectors and industries, approached the Government with concerns over the impacts the restrictions would have on their businesses. Restrictions meant that they were unable to operate their combined heat and power plants effectively and risked not being able to recertify as normal through the combined heat and power quality assurance scheme as a result. There were two key issues affecting their operation. First, for some industrial processes, demand for power remained but heat customers had shut down, meaning that useful heat was being wasted. Secondly, there were reports of a significantly reduced quality of biomass supply, which was negatively impacting the volume required to meet demand. These issues impacted the operational data that is used in the certification process, presenting a risk for operators that they might not be able to certify for their usual level of benefits in 2021.
A consultation was launched on 15 December 2020 to measure the number of affected operators and to seek views on a proposed temporary amendment to the certification process which we are here to discuss today. Agreement to support CHP operators was unanimous. The consultation received support from a wide variety of stakeholders, including unimpacted operators confirming that they agreed the solution was fair and appropriate.
The rules and procedures relating to the CHPQA are contained in the quality assurance scheme’s standard. Issue 8 of the standard has been amended to allow for a temporary revision to the certification process to allow operators to use their unimpacted 2019 operational data for their 2021 certification instead of impacted 2020 operational data. This will allow affected operators to access appropriate levels of financial benefits in 2021 based on their energy use, thereby avoiding further Covid-related financial impacts on key businesses and industries in the UK. To ensure that this easement is provided only to operators impacted by the Covid-19 lockdown restrictions, all operators seeking to utilise this easement must provide sufficient evidence, which will be assessed on a case-by-case basis by the experienced quality assurance delivery partner.
These regulations give effect to the amended Issue 8 of the standard through amendments to references in the Renewables Obligation Order 2015 and the Emissions Performance Standard Regulations 2015. Certification through the combined heat and power quality assurance scheme provides access to benefits under multiple policies implemented through a variety of powers. Associated instruments are being laid by Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs, as well as in Scotland and Northern Ireland, over the coming weeks, to update the CHPQA standard to Issue 8 across the relevant legislation. The regulatory amendments will be in place for 12 months following this instrument coming into force.
The Government do not intend to extend the amendment to the quality assurance scheme’s processes for further years, as it is expected that businesses have now had the opportunity to adapt their processes, and we hope that there will be no additional extended periods of restrictions related to Covid-19 for the rest of 2021 and beyond. This update to the standard also removes references to EU directives.
This change to the CHPQA certification process will avoid increased operational costs being passed on to consumers, and will support vulnerable businesses and industries in the UK to avoid further financial impacts and potential job losses caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. Due to the financial incentives accessed through the CHPQA predominantly being exemptions from a variety of operational costs, such as taxes, no new or additional funding is required to implement this support.
I conclude by emphasising the important role that combined heat and power technology will have in our route to decarbonising energy use. Therefore, stake- holders affected by Covid-19 restrictions should be supported. This amendment provides excellent value for money for the public purse as no additional funding is being allocated to the support and it avoids additional running costs being passed on to consumers. This is a proportionate, transparent and widely supported administrative amendment that will avoid further financial impacts on crucial, vulnerable businesses and industries in the UK. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to contribute to this little debate and I welcome the regulations. I congratulate my noble friend on setting out their remit so clearly and comprehensively. I place on record my enthusiasm for combined heat and power and I recognise the advantages of this form of use, particularly given that it has efficiency of over 80%. Operators typically save around 20% on energy bills and can save up to 30% on carbon emissions. Transmission and distribution losses are reduced while fuel supply security is increased.
I should like to put a number of questions for my greater understanding of the impact of the regulations. My noble friend said that the Covid situation, particularly lockdown in 2020 and at the beginning of 2021, has led to the need for these regulations. However, if, heaven forfend, a lockdown were to be reinstated later this year, what will happen to the regulations when they come to their natural expiry date, which I understand is 12 months from 18 May?
Also, my noble friend referred to the fact that one of the issues leading to the need for the regulations before us is that there was a reduced supply of biomass. Is that still the case or has the situation been redressed? Are we still heavily dependent on imports of biomass? If so, I plead an interest, given that I was a North Yorkshire MP for 18 years.
Farmers in this country stand prepared to contribute to the supply of biomass. I could be wrong, but I understand that one of the sources could be fast-growing willow trees. It would be a much better and more sustainable supply, while contributing to the income of farmers in the UK, if we could secure biomass from a UK source rather than importing it. Will the Minister address the issue that she herself raised about the reduction in biomass supply? Is that still the case? Are we completely dependent, for the large part, on imports? Has the supply now been reinstated?
What happens at the expiry of this instrument on 18 May next year? Will it fall or be reviewed to see whether it could be reinstated?
I understand that there is a difference between combined heat and power plants and energy from waste. I am also an enthusiastic supporter of energy from waste. I am delighted to see that the energy from waste plant constructed near the A1 in North Yorkshire is working so well. My one regret is that the energy created is not being put into the local grid, because there is an argument—particularly in a cold part of the country, such as the north of England—that the supply should be for domestic consumption.
Can the Minister address how many CHP plants currently have the capability to operate CHP but are not yet functioning as CHP plants? To what extent does she imagine that the regulations will address that issue, or are they only addressing the issue of those who have benefited from the scheme in the past and who wish to have the amendments set out in the regulations?
I note that there are no plans to consolidate the Renewables Obligation Order 2015 or the Emissions Performance Standard Regulations 2015 for the simple reason that these are temporary modifications. That is very welcome indeed.
I support the regulations before us. They will come as a huge relief to those operators who have been caught on the hop in this way. With those points and questions, I wish the Minister a fair wind with these regulations.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, this instrument has been prepared by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The CHPQA scheme, through the CHPQA standard, outlines the CHPQA methodology, definitions, thresholds and criteria for “good quality” certification of a CHP plant. The latest version of the CHPQA standard, Issue 8, was published by the department on 11 March 2021 to reflect the temporary easement for CHP plants impacted by measures implemented in response to the Covid-19 pandemic and to remove references to the energy efficiency directive.
The instrument modifies for a period of 12 months, beginning with the day on which it comes into force, the Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme Regulations 2018 to refer to the CHPQA standard as Issue 8. CHPQA certification enables access to incentives through multiple schemes legislated for by different departments and the devolved Administrations, which all intend to modify these schemes via separate instruments as soon as they can. Separate modification regulations for 2021 are also being laid by the department, the purpose of which is to make similar modifications to the Renewables Obligation Order 2015 and the Emissions Performance Standard Regulations 2015 via the affirmative procedure.
CHP is an energy-efficient technology that allows generation of both heat and power on-site, providing fuel and carbon savings compared with separate generation. The scheme was launched in 2000 as a voluntary programme to assess and certify CHPs. To encourage CHP installations and efficient use of the technology, certification through CHPQA enables operators to access multiple benefits, including exemptions from the climate change levy and carbon price support taxes and emissions performance standards limits and, for renewable-fuelled CHP, the renewable heat incentive and renewables obligation.
The CHPQA standard outlines the methodology, definitions and criteria for “good quality” certification. The CHPQA standard is referenced in the individual legislation for each scheme that CHPQA certification provides a benefit in relation to.
To certify, CHP operators submit operational performance data for the previous calendar year to claim taxes and benefits in the next calendar year. There are two key parameters for CHPQA certification: quality index and power efficiency. The QI calculation is based on the amount of useful heat, electricity output and fuel input. CHP schemes can achieve either full certification if they pass the thresholds or partial certification, with benefits deducted proportionally to the overall QI and power efficiency values.
Finally, a six-week consultation was held between 15 December 2020 and 29 January 2021. This consultation period was considered appropriate because of the straightforward nature of the changes, narrow stakeholder interest and timing pressures to confirm certification for 2021. This was paired with direct stakeholder engagement, including with all CHP plants certified in 2019.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument. She has already touched on some of the topics that I wanted to pursue a little further.
As has been explained, the instrument temporarily modifies the certification process for the combined heat and power quality assurance scheme, which certifies energy-efficient combined heat and power plants and gives access to financial incentives, including environmental tax exemptions. As with many businesses, the pandemic and lockdown have given rise to a highly abnormal year, so some schemes that would normally have qualified for incentives may not, because their 2020 operational data does not qualify them. Where those businesses can show a direct effect from the pandemic, the Government are allowing use of their 2019 data instead of the anomalous Covid-impacted 2020 data for the purposes of qualifying for the financial incentives in 2021.
That is a logical approach, and this is not the first SI that I have seen which makes adjustments because of the pandemic. I am pleased to see that the safeguard is there: there has to be a direct effect of the pandemic, rather than the ability to choose 2019 data automatically if it was better, potentially for other reasons. Therefore, I agree with the changes and I hope that the Minister will indulge me as I use some of the time available to ask a few general questions about combined heat and power, and indeed energy from waste.
One thing I noticed in the Explanatory Memorandum was the use of the expression “Good Quality” CHP, which is what the incentive is about. That is key, and it set me wondering where CHP sat in the context of net zero more generally. The Minister explained that much depended on carbon capture and the development of hydrogen for the future, but there are also problems—such as how to utilise the heat, especially in the domestic environment—that have restricted how well CHP developments have proceeded to deliver on not wasting the heat. What are the Government doing to help in that?
It seems that, in some ways, CHP as a technology has not quite fulfilled its promise in terms of uptake and utilisation of what was otherwise waste heat. I am aware that some of the incentives are now closed to new entrants. I am not sure whether that is to discourage less environmentally friendly types of CHP or that it reflects a cost or “job done” situation, such as with solar feed-in subsidies. What types of CHP plant are presently encouraged? In the future, for example, will gas CHP systems be phased out, as is planned for new domestic boilers, and what is the timescale? I appreciate that I formulated that question before the Minister made the comments about carbon capture, so that is a part of it, but ultimately we probably cannot solve everything that way.
I also want to explore the situation with energy from waste. As I understand it, pretty well all recent energy-from-waste plants are CHP-ready, but there are challenges of using the heat. Given that the financial success of energy-from-waste plants does not hinge on using the heat, what incentives are there for plant owners to overcome the various legal and technical problems—and, indeed, reluctance from the public—to address those issues?
Energy from waste is of course a high carbon-footprint method of generation, as indeed is biomass at the point at which it is utilised, although both run on the basis that they are less bad than the alternatives. But it will be important to stop the release of that carbon, no matter whether there is—as in biomass—a good history of there being some carbon absorption during the process of growth. How does that play out in trying to solve the heat distribution issues? Are these technologies seen as insufficiently long-term projects to make sorting it out worth while? If they are not, they really are not living up to the promise of what the combined CHP, in its wider sense, is meant to do. Indeed, looking to the future and potential nuclear microgeneration, is solving the heat distribution problems not also key for that to be successful?
I appreciate that these questions are beyond the subject of this regulation, but my curiosity was piqued. If there is not information to hand right now, I would be happy for the Minister to write or direct me to the relevant documents that give the answers or provide more information. As I have said, I have no objection to the regulation.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her introduction to the regulations before the Committee today. This instrument is simple but effective and its aims are largely technical. It modifies for a period of 12 months the application of two aspects of the combined heat and power quality assurance scheme in relation to the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on the performance of CHP operators that resulted in shortfalls in their standards in the provision for the previous calendar year.
The Government have agreed to allow a temporary easement to the certification process necessary to enable CHP operators to continue to access multiple benefits, such as carbon price support taxes and emissions performance standard limits. Indeed, 2020 was a very abnormal year as well as an inappropriate one on which to submit performance data. These regulations modify two instruments—the Renewables Obligation Order 2015 and the Emissions Performance Standard Regulations 2015—to refer to the technical Issue 8 of the CHP quality assurance standard. CHP operators can submit their 2019 operational data instead of the 2020 data for the 2021 certification. Issue 8 was published on 11 March 2021 to reflect this temporary easement for CHP plants impacted by measures implemented in response to the pandemic.
I am content to approve this order to allow a recovery period in which CHP operators can continue with data from the previous year’s performances. Do the Government believe they have judged the length of dispensation period correctly? What calculations have they undertaken to assess the slippage effect of the pandemic and whether a shorter period of time might have been sufficient for operators to get back on track?
I imagine that all the failing operators will have applied for this dispensation. Can the Minister tell the Committee how many operators the Government estimate may apply, and will the submission only of data from 2019 qualify them for certification? Will the operators need to demonstrate how Covid-19 impacted their business performance? Have the Government considered that there could be CHP plants that might have fallen short and yet not have been severely impacted by Covid-19? Would this matter, as it is the data that is not impacted and not the quality of standards? Perhaps the Minister might explain, as the measures implemented to combat Covid-19 may well have affected all performances, irrespective of district or operational abilities. However, that the data provided in 2019 would be sufficient to qualify for continuation of benefits would suggest that a large degree of compliance will not have changed, only the data achieved in 2019 for those shut or intermittently open during 2020.
I agree that it may not be necessary to implement a complicated bureaucratic quality assurance threshold for the various degrees of impact in 2020, and this SI seems straightforward in that respect. Can the Minister say whether any serious concerns were raised in the consultation?
I hope that as the economy recovers and the inoculation process continues to offer protections from the extremities of disease impact we will see a swift return to better operational performances. Do the Government consider that the audit of standards should become part of next year’s process of certification or do they consider that the return to data standards provided by the immediately preceding year will be sufficient? Naturally, I sincerely hope that there will be no need for further reconsiderations for next year if the UK should experience a return to lockdown measures.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this short debate on a very important subject. I start by saying that my response to the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, will be provided in writing after the debate.
I make the following points in response to those raised by my noble friend Lady McIntosh—and I am very grateful for her support for the proposed amendments. The public consultation published in December 2020 discussed only the option of providing support for the 2021 certification period. While we expect businesses will be able to adapt to further impacts in 2021, if circumstances change we can consider extending the support. The UK supports only biomass that complies with strict sustainability criteria. We are reviewing the air quality impacts of biomass to ensure that our energy policies can jointly tackle climate change and improve air quality. We understand that biomass CHP operators have been able to re-establish supplies.
My noble friend also asked how many CHP plants were not functioning as they should. By 5 May 2021, 261 sites, representing 19% of all certified CHP sites, had expressed an interest in submitting evidence to access the easement; 197 were in England, 33 in Scotland, 18 in Northern Ireland and 13 in Wales. I think that answers a question raised also by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, I am very grateful to her for her support for this important safeguarding and welcome her comments on the broader issues of energy from waste, as indeed I do those of my noble friend Lady McIntosh. It is an area in which I am particularly interested, but my briefing does not really cover a lot of the questions that she asked in detail. However, I would be delighted to write to her with more details, and perhaps there will be more questions in the House relating to energy from waste.
The CHPQA requires that heat is used usefully; to qualify for benefits, sites must demonstrate that the heat being used displaces alternative heat generation, such as by boilers. Noble Lords mentioned some wider policy challenges around the effective distribution of heat and support for decarbonisation, which will help us to reach 2050 targets. There is a great deal going on in this space, such as strategies for hydrogen and industrial energy, and it may be easier for me to write to provide a more detailed list.
I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, that almost all operators will use 2019 data for their recertification, but those without 2019 data will use their design data, as is the usual process within the scheme. Evidence will be required to access the easement to show sufficiently the impact of Covid on the operation of CHPs. No serious concerns were raised during the consultation.
The noble Lord also asked about checks and balances. To ensure that this easement is provided only to operators impacted by the Covid-19 lockdown restrictions, all operators seeking to utilise this easement must provide sufficient evidence, which will be assessed on a case-by-case basis by the experienced quality assurance delivery partner. The CHPQA delivery partner has the required technical experience to access these applications, and I am assured that they have sufficient manpower to process the applications.
Following the Covid-19 restrictions throughout 2020, support for the impacted combined heat and power operator is crucial, as this technology holds significant opportunity to help decarbonise energy use. Without this support, valuable jobs in green industries could be lost and efficient technologies abandoned in favour of carbon-intensive alternatives. This administrative amendment is transparent and fair, as confirmed by stakeholders during public consultation, and represents excellent value for money, with no additional capital required to implement. I commend these regulations to the House.
Arrangement of Business
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. The time limit for this debate is one hour.
Air Quality (Legislative Functions) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That the Grand Committee do consider the Air Quality (Legislative Functions) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con) [V]
My Lords, before you today are the Air Quality (Legislative Functions) (Amendment) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 22 March. The Government are committed to continuing our high standards of industrial pollution reporting. All the changes introduced by this instrument are technical and are required to ensure that the United Kingdom’s industrial pollution reporting remains relevant and up to date, reflecting scientific, technical and international progress.
These regulations make amendments to our regulations on pollutant release transfer registers, or PRTRs, and specifically a piece of retained direct EU law. The original regulation 166/2006 was amended on EU exit and provides for a PRTR to be maintained for the United Kingdom in the form of a publicly accessible electronic database. Now that the transition period has ended, this EU-derived legislation otherwise risks being left partially ineffective, should there be a rapid industrial or technological change.
These regulations amend the PRTR regulation to confer two powers. The first power will enable the Secretary of State and the devolved Administrations to make regulations on reporting on releases of pollutants from diffuse sources. Diffuse pollution can be caused by a variety of activities that have no specific point of discharge, or are difficult to place at a specific location. The appropriate authority can do this if it determines that no data on the release from diffuse sources exists, and it must use internationally approved methodologies where appropriate.
The second power means that the Secretary of State can amend annexe II of the PRTR regulation for the purposes of adapting it to scientific or technical progress, or to reflect any future amendments to the Kiev protocol on PRTRs. I assure the Committee that this power could be used only for that purpose. Annexe II of the PRTR regulation sets out a list of pollutants and threshold values which, if exceeded, operators of industrial facilities are required to report any releases of the pollutants to air, land or water.
Both these powers are limited in their scope and can be exercised only for specified purposes. These powers are critical to ensure that the UK Government and devolved Administrations can act quickly to strengthen pollution reporting on emerging scientific or technical evidence—for instance, should there be a new pollutant on which it is in the public interest to report pollution information. It is therefore appropriate for these powers to be exercisable by secondary legislation.
These powers also ensure that the Government can reflect in UK legislation any changes made to the Kiev protocol on PRTRs so that we can continue to meet our obligations as a party to the protocol. We anticipate that any future changes to the protocol will strengthen parties’ reporting to better fulfil the aims of the protocol, rather than being fundamental changes to the principles of the protocol.
These powers mean that future technical changes to the regulations can be made with secondary legislation, which is the most proportionate approach. Such amending legislation would be subject to the negative procedure, which would allow appropriate scrutiny, given the technical nature of any changes.
The PRTR regulation will continue to function similarly to how it always has, but with UK authorities now having legislative functions under the regulation. I should make it clear that all the amendments introduced by this instrument are technical operability amendments to maintain the effectiveness of this important UK industrial emissions reporting obligation. These regulations maintain existing regulatory standards and do not create new policy.
Provision for the transfer of powers for PRTR was included in the Environment and Wildlife (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. However, the PRTR regulation was amended in EU law after the 2019 EU exit statutory instrument was made, which meant that the PRTR part of the EU exit statutory instrument no longer operated as intended. Therefore, further amendments to the PRTR regulation are needed to ensure that the transfers of legislative powers are reinstated and have effect as intended following EU exit.
This instrument is subject to the affirmative procedure as it involves the transfer of powers. Furthermore, because the instrument does not alter existing reporting, it was not subject to consultation. There has been no need to conduct an impact assessment for this instrument, in line with published guidance, because there is no foreseen impact on the private or voluntary sector as the instrument relates to maintenance of existing regulatory standards, and there are no direct or cost impacts from these regulations.
This statutory instrument forms part of our important air quality and industrial emissions legislation. Noble Lords will be aware of other important legislation we have introduced to improve air quality. For instance, the new legislation restricting the sale of the most polluting fuels used in domestic burning came into force on 1 May 2021. This will restrict the sale of traditional house coal, small volumes of wet wood and high sulphur manufactured solid fuels.
In addition, our ground-breaking Environment Bill will protect and improve the environment for future generations. The Bill will improve air quality by setting a duty to introduce a legally binding target to reduce fine particulate matter—PM2.5—which is the most damaging pollutant to human health. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation. I declare an interest: I have just retired as president of Environmental Protection UK, which almost started its life as the National Society For Clean Air, and I am still a vice-president. Therefore, anything with “air quality” in the title attracts my attention.
I have to confess that I first put my name down for this debate under a bit of a misapprehension. The title of this SI, with its reference to legislative functions, implied to me that we might get to know which of the functions hitherto carried out by the European Commission and its agencies would be transferred to which UK bodies and regulators. Indeed, I hoped that we might get a clearer idea than is apparent from either the latest version of Defra’s air quality strategy or the text of the Environment Bill—in its present form at least—on which authorities will be responsible for the regulations and the enforcement of which bits of that strategy, thus indicating which public authorities would be responsible for those functions that previously rested with the European institutions. I hoped that we could get some clarification with this SI, but no such luck.
As the Minister explained, the SI deals with a much wider issue in a sense, but also a much narrower one. The wider context is that we are now internationally a party to the UNECE agreement on dangerous pollution registration as an independent signatory, having previously been party via our membership of the EU and the European pollutant release and transfer register. We therefore have little leeway on a long-standing international agreement under the Aarhus convention, transposed into EU law, as I understand it, in 2006.
What is before us is also narrower because the main obligation under it is not on government bodies but on the industrial operators to maintain their register of pollution and waste release, leakages and transfers. But, of course, this registration system requires government bodies to oversee its operation, and it is not clear even from what the Minister said, let alone the text, which government bodies we are talking about. The crude transfer from the European Commission to the Secretary of State does not answer that question—which body in practice is, as the text says, the “appropriate authority”? Is it Defra? Is it the Environment Agency? Is it local authorities, which generally bear the brunt of air quality enforcement in practice? Is this UK-wide? What are the responsibilities of the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, all of which have direct regulatory relations with the relevant operators that have to maintain registers under these provisions? Even if it is England only, it is not all that clear who is responsible.
I was for a number of years a Minister in Defra and its predecessor departments, and then for six years a member of the board of the Environment Agency. I briefly had responsibility for air quality at Defra, but in the six years I was on the Environment Agency board, every year we considered a chart of our performance against our KSIs. Most of the achievements were amber and many gratifyingly green, but on air quality, year after year, they were red, and that never changed. The reason for that lay not in the responsibilities of the Environment Agency itself, nor, indeed, of the local authorities of which the Environment Agency had oversight, but because the largest air-quality issues were largely problems for the Department for Transport or its agencies, or for BEIS or whatever the department covering energy and construction was called at the time. In other words, the department and agency which were formally responsible for air quality strategy had no jurisdiction over the largest problems of air-quality pollution and health hazards—road transport being the largest, but there were also major contributions by static machinery on construction and energy sites.
The issue of what is the appropriate authority goes beyond this particular SI, and we may need to return to it at a later stage. We need eventually to be clear on this. I hope that we will be before we start substantive discussion on the Environment Bill, but I have to tell Ministers that in its present form, the Bill is not clear on air quality.
I have just a couple of other questions. First, the UNECE agreement prevents signatories from deleting pollutants from the list but allows signatories—previously the EU and now the UK—to add to the list for their jurisdictions. Do Her Majesty’s Government at present have any plans to add to the list or to change the thresholds for reporting that are in Annexe 2, Article 5 of the protocol?
Some of those thresholds seem very high for releases into the atmosphere per annum, and some of the releases into water and soil really ought to be banned altogether in a sustainable system. The whole issue of what is the threshold for reporting probably needs to be addressed now that we have “taken back control” of our rules. Otherwise, a number of smaller entities that release pollutants and waste will not really be covered. Do the Government have plans to review the thresholds and, if so, will that be part of the Environment Bill, or will it be later?
Lastly, I go back to the devolution issue. We talk about “appropriate agencies”. Are decisions in this area to be taken by Defra and/or the Environment Agency, which are the key entities for England, or are we to have a four-nation framework, under which all four UK Governments will take an agreed position? If there is not a unified position, the companies obliged to run the register will be required to do so in a number of different jurisdictions. They will find that bureaucratically difficult if there are marginally different criteria north and south of the Tweed, or east and west of Offa’s Dyke, for example. Even if the criteria are the same, the duty to record the register and provide it to the appropriate authority will be fourfold rather than, as currently, a single reporting system.
As I said, I was under a bit of a misapprehension as to how wide this SI went, but it raises some of those problems. I am happy to nod the SI through this afternoon, but we will need some clarification of those issues—if not today, I ask the Minister to consider it in the course of the passage of the Environment Bill, if not before.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his clear explanation of these rather complicated regulations. I welcome them and am pleased they do not represent a weakening of existing protections. As we have heard, the amendments proposed concern provisions of Regulation 166/2006 that confer supervisory powers on the Commission, and transfer them to the Secretary of State. However, as the primary reporting obligations fall on operators, this is not the self-regulatory shift that we have seen introduced in some other SIs that have been tabled as a result of our leaving the EU.
As with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, when I see air quality mentioned it attracts my attention. I know that this Government, in particular my noble friend, take the whole issue of air quality seriously. I therefore hope, as we have already heard, that we will see more legislation in the Environment Bill that will ensure that we maintain and improve our air quality, and that it remains a government priority.
I have been raising these issues for a long time, from when I was in the other place. When I have done so it has often been related to the proximity of where I live to Heathrow Airport and the M4. I am afraid to say that those problems still exist, as we all know. Like many last year, I noticed the real improvement during lockdown when traffic and air traffic were at a minimum. The air actually tasted better, if that does not sound too dramatic.
While recognising that this is a debate on a statutory instrument, I hope that I may be allowed a gentle and brief foray into some other air quality issues that I hope we can address in the Environment Bill. After all, my noble friend mentioned some of the things that the Government were doing. One issue that I and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, pushed on in the Agriculture Act was that of pesticides. We urgently need regulations to prohibit the application of chemical pesticides near buildings and spaces used by residents and members of the public, with the aim of improving air quality and protecting human health and the environment in rural areas. This is a matter of urgency. Although we have received assurances that regulations already in force amply protect the public, I am afraid that I am still far from convinced. Perhaps I, other noble Lords and some campaigners may have the opportunity to discuss this matter with my noble friend during or before the passage of the Environment Bill in your Lordships’ House.
A final plea before I close my comments is again to ask the Government seriously to consider including the World Health Organization PM2.5 limit value as a minimum level of ambition for the air quality target in the Bill. I heard what my noble friend said and I hope that we can put that in legislation.
With those friendly shots across the ministerial ship’s bows, I reiterate that I welcome these regulations.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Randall, who has done so much good work in this area for so long. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his clear explanation of this SI, which of course I support. I am grateful to him for all the work that he is doing on these important issues.
Air quality needs to be measured and we must ensure that our industrial pollutants are properly registered. I am pleased that we aim to fulfil the Kiev protocol on PRTRs. I echo the question from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, as to whether there are any plans to potentially improve on some of the targets set by the international protocols.
I should also like to congratulate the Government on the already-achieved reduction in air pollution with, for example, nitrogen oxides reportedly having fallen by about a third since 2010 and emissions of fine particulate matter, which is so damaging, having fallen by around 10% since then. Indeed, our clean air strategy, published in 2019, was praised by the World Health Organization as an example for the rest of the world to follow. In that context, therefore, does my noble friend the Minister have plans to continue to be world-leading and is he considering any other measures that could pave the way for others to follow?
We have air pollution from transport, industry, solid fuel heating and cleaning products. It is the single greatest environmental risk to human health, particularly given the problem of nitrogen dioxide and its concentration around our roads. Can my noble friend comment on any further actions that are planned for local authorities to monitor and control their local emissions and report back to government on the overall developments in this area?
Clearly, we urgently need cleaner and healthier air, especially if we want to improve the health of the nation, which is one of the major aims that I hope we will foster as a result of the pandemic and the terrible impacts it has had. Again, especially with respect to fine particulate matter, which is so damaging to the elderly, children or others susceptible to asthma and lung problems, which have been such a particular drawback for human health during this Covid outbreak, have the Government measured the reductions in emissions that may have resulted from lockdown? Have they any report on what has happened to air quality in, for example, London and major cities? Has this been measured? Have any improvements been noted? Have any resulting benefits to human health been measured? Perhaps that is too difficult. On any of these questions I am of course happy for my noble friend to write to me if he does not have the answers to hand. I apologise that I did not give him prior notice of these questions.
What impact does my noble friend anticipate the Government’s extension of electric vehicles across our vehicle fleet might have on our air pollution? Indeed, too often one hears the suggestion that electric cars are not such a great benefit to the environment because, although they themselves may not emit carbon, they are particularly involved with carbon emissions in their production. Does my noble friend agree that actually that omits one of the other huge potential advantages of switching to electric vehicles and away from diesel or petrol cars: the improvement in air quality as pollutant emissions are reduced? That in itself can be a significant contributor to improvements in air quality.
I welcome this SI. I am glad to see the Government’s commitment to improving air quality and our environmental credentials. I look forward to hearing my noble friend’s response.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to support the regulations before us and to follow my noble friend Lady Altmann. My enthusiasm and excitement for hybrid and electric vehicles are strongly tempered by their cost, the inability to charge them up in rural areas and the rising cost of insurance, which I understand is significant for hybrid and electric vehicles.
I welcome the measures before us to reduce industrial pollution much more than some of the Government’s measures referred to by my noble friend the Minister, who so eloquently presented the regulations. The measures I hesitate more over are those that will negatively impact on rural areas, such as those restricting the sale of traditional household coal and small volumes of wet wood, as well as of solid fuels. These need to be considered with great care, particularly weighing up what the impact will be on deeply rural areas, particularly those that are vulnerable to cold spells, such as the north of England.
I support a number of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, raised, in particular understanding the Government’s role in amending and changing the categories in the UNECE protocol. In this regard, is there an opportunity to amend them in the forthcoming COP? If that is the case, could my noble friend the Minister identify which countries, including our erstwhile partners in the European Union, are likely to support such an amendment?
Perhaps my greatest concern is how we can ensure that these amendments today and the broader thrust of the government measures, most of which I welcome, to improve air quality will be implemented and enforced. All of us who are familiar with and have worked with environmental law over the past 20 or 30 years know the role of the European Commission as the safeguard of the treaty obligations into which we have entered. I understand that today’s regulations transpose those, as agreed in Regulation 166/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council, to which my noble friend referred in outlining the regulations this afternoon.
There is a very real issue here: for the first time—this is something that we should welcome, if we could only understand it more fully—we are going to cover public authorities in the round and their environmental responsibilities. Many of us are familiar with water companies and farmers who are heavily censored for any spillage or pollution. It is currently unclear—it really is a lacuna—who is applying the rules in the event of a breach of the air quality rules as currently exist and will apply these regulations if we adopt them today. If it is to be the office for environmental protection, I would welcome that, but we have not yet had the chance to consider what its role, staffing and resources will be and what the relationship will be between the office for environmental protection and other bodies such as the Environment Agency and Natural England.
As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, asked—and I know it causes great concern across the devolved nations—are we going to have disparity in the way that regulations such as these will be implemented in the four nations of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as we are going to have at least three offices of environmental protection operating? In welcoming the regulations and enthusiastically supporting the positive approach that both the Minister and the department are taking in this regard, I believe we have a long way to go to ensure that any breaches of these air quality regulations are firmly stamped on and that we, and those who might be accused of transgressing, actually understand what the remit of the OEP and other bodies will be. I welcome the regulations.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, as we have heard, this SI makes amendments to retained direct EU legislation relating to air quality under Section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This is to ensure that it continues to operate effectively, as the Minister outlined. It is important to note that the corrections that are being made through restatement are necessary to clarify the retained direct EU law covered by the SI. The instrument is designed to ensure that the legislation operates properly.
As the Minister outlined in his helpful introduction, this SI will allow UK authorities to operate specific legislative functions in the UK to ensure that the regime of the retained direct EU law continues to function smoothly without the need for further primary legislation every time a change is required. The SI is specific and focused and, as the Minister said, does not make changes to substantive policy content. It is a technical set of regulations. If we look at the proposed amendment, however, it states that the “appropriate authority” could make regulations governing the release and transfer of emissions from diffuse point sources; but the purpose of the provision remains the same, which is to allow for the collection and provision of missing data.
As my noble friend Lord Whitty asked, which bodies in practice will be the appropriate authorities? It is not clear from this SI, and it is critical that we understand where responsibilities lie in the issue of air pollution, both in England and, as my noble friend mentioned, in the devolved Administrations, where that is appropriate. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, also asked for more information in this area, including on the important question of what happens when there is a breach and who is responsible.
Having said all that, however, this SI is a classic case of Her Majesty’s Government having to correct a previous error. Paragraph 2.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that the amendments contained in the previous instrument
“did not operate as intended.”
We support these corrections, of course, by way of restatement, but we would like to draw attention yet again to the fact that this is not the first time that Defra has identified and then had to correct issues in the body of retained EU law. I know that many would say that teething problems are inevitable. But does the Minister agree that when errors happen over and over again and have to be corrected, no matter how minor they are, it undermines confidence in the integrity of the statute book?
As we have already noted, this SI is specific and focused. However, as others have noted, air pollution remains a major public health challenge. The Opposition will be looking very closely at this important issue during the passage of the Environment Bill, because we are concerned, as my noble friend Lord Whitty said, about the responsibilities of the appropriate authorities and the resources that will be supplied to them in order for them to carry out their jobs effectively and efficiently. We also have concerns on the issue of pesticides, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, raised the issue of transport emissions—again, critical for us to tackle if we are to resolve the issue of severe air pollution.
The Environment Bill will give us an opportunity to properly address and tackle the shocking levels of air pollution in parts of our country that lead to so much ill health, particularly among our young and vulnerable people—and sadly, on some occasions, to early death. I finish by welcoming the regulations and saying that I look forward to working constructively with the Minister and other noble Lords.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I thank Members of the Committee who have contributed to today’s debate. The UK continues to support the UNECE Kiev protocol and to publish industrial pollution release and waste transfer data on an annual basis. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for her support for this instrument. As she said, it is vital that we keep our UK PRTR up to date according to technical, scientific or international developments, and all the changes introduced by this instrument are necessary to enable this to happen. My understanding in relation to one of her points is that we are not actually correcting an error but reinstating giving of powers to the appropriate authorities.
In answer to questions from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, which were also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, about the division of these powers between devolved Administrations and the Secretary of State, the power to change the annexes of the PRTR have been transferred to the Secretary of State. The power to update the reporting of diffuse sources has been transferred to the appropriate authorities, which include the Secretary of State and devolved Administrations—but the Secretary of State can act with the consent of the DAs.
We have agreed with the devolved Administrations that it is important to continue to have a single UK PRTR, which will ensure the uniformity of this important industrial pollution release and transfer register. Therefore, the power has been given to the Secretary of State to exercise for the whole of the UK, with the consent of the DAs. The updates would be triggered if there were scientific and technical progress or updates to international agreements that needed to be reflected in the reporting parameters. If each UK Administration worked to different technical annexes, there would be a risk to the uniform UK PRTR approach and a single coherent register would not be possible.
The power to take measures to initiate reporting on releases of relevant pollutants from diffuse sources where no data exists has been transferred to the appropriate authorities—the Secretary of State, the Welsh Ministers, the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs—to exercise in their respective areas. The Secretary of State can also exercise the function for a devolved Administration, with their consent. Although we do not have any plans to update the list of pollutants, we closely consider technical and scientific evidence that will inform possible future changes.
On the timing of these regulations, a question raised by a number of noble Lords, the vast majority of legislation needed for EU exit was made prior to finishing the transition period. The transfer of powers for PRTR was completed alongside other environmental legislation in 2019, via the Environment and Wildlife (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/473). However, new PRTR legislation adopted since that SI inadvertently reversed the effect of the previous statutory instrument, meaning that the Secretary of State’s powers needed to be reinstated. This is the earliest opportunity to lay and debate this legislation.
I reiterate for the Committee that the legislation will not change PRTR reporting. These regulations maintain existing regulatory standards and do not create new policy or change any aspects of the PRTR reporting. These regulations just ensure that the UK statute book remains operable now that we have left the European Union. Any future changes that are made to PRTR reporting are more appropriate for Ministers to make through secondary legislation, with parliamentary scrutiny throughout the process. This will be the best use of parliamentary time, given the technical nature of updates which will be made, which will be made only if there is technical or scientific evidence to suggest an update is needed, or if the PRTR protocol itself is updated. We anticipate that any future changes to the protocol will be to strengthen parties’ reporting to better fulfil the aims of the protocol, rather than fundamental changes to the principles of the protocol. Therefore, updates to reporting parameters will be best managed through secondary legislation instead of primary legislation.
With regard to the international origins of this legislation, the UK is continuing to work with other countries on PRTRs through the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe—UNECE—and the OECD.
We undertook a call for views on the UK’s implementation of the Kiev protocol on PRTRs last year, and no responses raised concerns or issues with the accessibility of publicly available information. This regulation is an important part of our wider legislation on air quality and industrial emissions. Our commitment to air quality and industrial emissions is also, as a number of noble Lords commented, underpinned by our ambitious environmental agenda, including our 25-year environment plan and our clean air strategy, which has been praised by the WHO as
“an example for the rest of the world to follow”.
We are delivering a £3.8 billion plan to clean up transport and tackle NO2 pollution and going further in protecting communities from air pollution, particularly PM2.5 which is especially harmful to human health. Through the Environment Bill we are also setting ambitious new air quality targets, with a focus on reducing public health impacts.
In response to my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge, of course we want a dramatic reduction in the use of pesticides. However, pesticides are authorised for use when scientific assessment demonstrates that this will not cause harm to human health. Pesticide users are required to take all reasonable precautions to protect human health and the environment and to confine the product to the area intended to be treated. When using a pesticide in areas used by the public or vulnerable groups, operators must also ensure that the amount and frequency of use is as low as reasonably practicable. Pesticide users must follow the statutory conditions of use for every pesticide they use. However, as I say, we absolutely want to see a dramatic reduction in their use.
On Heathrow, we have worked together for many years on this issue and noble Lords know my views. The Government have been clear that it is a private sector project which must meet strict criteria on air quality, noise and climate change, as well as being privately funded and delivered in the best interest of consumers. It is now down to an applicant to demonstrate that it can meet all those criteria.
Also in response to my noble friend Lord Randall, our landmark Environment Bill will improve air quality by establishing a duty to set a target to reduce fine particulate matter—PM2.5—alongside a further long-term target on air quality as part of the wider framework for setting legally binding environmental targets. The Government are committed to evidence-based policy-making and will consider the World Health Organization guideline level for PM2.5 as we approach setting the targets, alongside independent expert advice, evidence and analysis on a diversity of factors.
Finally on this point, following comments by my noble friend Lady Altmann, it is important to set out the Government’s record on and commitment to improving air quality. Air pollution at a national level has reduced significantly since 2010. Emissions of fine particulate matter—PM2.5—have fallen by 11%, while emissions of nitrogen oxides are at their lowest level since records began. She asked about the impact of lockdown. I am afraid that I cannot give her the precise figures at this point, but I shall follow this up. We know that NO2 fell during lockdown, but we also know that levels are now rising again, unfortunately, as traffic increases. She also asked about the efficacy of electric vehicles. Certainly, they are a critically important part of the transition, but we are continuing to invest in research to ensure that we fully and properly understand all aspects of the issue.
Again in response to my noble friend Lady Altmann, while emissions continue to improve year on year, we know of course that there is much more to do. She asked what steps we were planning to take, and I have mentioned some already. Our clean air strategy outlines a package of measures across the whole economy to meet our 2030 commitments and the Environment Bill contains the new legal framework to do this. We have a strong pipeline of action, including on particulate matter, controlling emissions from domestic burning and, also on particulate matter, work to establish new air pollution targets. We are continuing to tackle emissions from agriculture following our consultation on solid urea fertilisers. We are establishing the most suitable approach for non-road mobile machinery, and we are controlling industrial emissions by driving innovation and enabling regulatory certainty through UK BAT.
Looking forward, we have committed in the Environment Bill to a systematic review of the national strategy, which focuses on local air quality management, aiming to better align national and local policies to deliver air quality improvements, and build the capacity of local delivery partners to effectively tackle localised air quality issues, which is a critical part of the national effort to reduce and address air pollution.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh also raised the issue of electric vehicles. She probably already knows that we are spending £880 million on retrofitting vehicles. Powers in our Environment Bill will enable government to force the recall of vehicles when they do not meet the environmental standards that they are legally required to meet.
As I have outlined, the Air Quality (Legislative Functions) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 make no change to the existing content of the UK industrial reporting or the nature of PRTR legislation. Therefore, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (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.
Food and Drink (Miscellaneous Amendments Relating to Food and Wine Composition, Information and Labelling) Regulations 2021
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
That the Grand Committee do consider the Food and Drink (Miscellaneous Amendments Relating to Food and Wine Composition, Information and Labelling) Regulations 2021.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, this instrument is required to address inconsistencies in our food labelling rules arising from the UK’s departure from the EU. It deals with a number of EU exit-related issues, particularly technical standards, which are not critical but which were not able to be addressed before the end of the transition period. This instrument amends certain retained direct EU legislation, including general food labelling, the labelling of non-beef meats, the labelling of primary ingredients, the labelling of geographical indication products for wines and agri-foods, authorised analysis methods, and oenological practices for the production of wine sector products and rules on their labelling and marketing. It also amends certain pieces of domestic food legislation in England to ensure continued operability following the end of the transition period.
While this instrument introduces no changes to policy, there are some real-world effects on food and drink information and the way in which it is presented to consumers. Transitional provisions have been included in the instrument to enable businesses to adjust to the required changes. The instrument will, as far as possible, ensure that retained EU law and existing domestic law continue to have the same effect and ensures that consumers and businesses can provide and make use of information in the same way following the transition period.
In the area of food labelling, where our rules prior to the end of the transition period required a food label to include an EU address of the business responsible for the information on the label, this will now need to be a UK or Crown dependency address. This is needed to ensure a direct and simple way for consumers and trading standards officers to contact those responsible for a food and the information relating to it. In addition, where a specific country of origin is not provided for certain meats, terms such as “non-EU” will no longer be appropriate for the GB market and will be replaced by UK-appropriate terms.
On food compositional standards, UK caseins sold in business-to-business transactions will now have to be labelled with the address of the responsible business operator in the UK, and for honey blends comprised of honey from several countries, the term “a blend of honeys from more than one country” or similar wording can now be used. It continues to be acceptable to name specific countries of origin instead. The use of previous EU-centric terms on their own will no longer be acceptable.
For wines, this instrument will make certain changes to ensure that retained EU rules on wine labelling and marketing reflect the GB context and remove, as appropriate, EU-centric terms. Similarly, it will ensure that practices available to produce wine are also adapted to fit the products that can or could legally be produced in the UK.
For geographical indications, this instrument provides a period of adjustment regarding the use of GI terms on labelling, such as “protected designation of origin”, or PDO, and “protected geographical indication”, or PGI. This means that, for a period of three years or until wine products are exhausted, enforcement bodies are compelled not to take action if a product is labelled for sale as a wine or agri-food GI but is not in fact protected on our registers. This applies as long as that product name had been protected in the UK up until the end of the transition period and the GB labelling was compliant. It is expected that application of this provision will be very seldom, relating just to a small number of GIs included in trade deals that have not yet transitioned to a UK footing.
As well as geographical indication labelling, the instrument also introduces transitional arrangements to enable businesses to adjust to the changes required. Businesses will have until 1 October 2022 to comply with the food labelling changes on the English market, and wine products will be able to be marketed with EU or UK importer details until that date. The longer three-year period for GI labelling is to align with the same timeframe applying to the adoption of the new GI logo, set out in separate legislation.
The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised two areas of interest regarding the use of EU origin designators on the GB market following the period of adjustment and what steps will be needed at the end of the period of adjustment to allow Northern Ireland food labelled as required for the Northern Ireland market to have unfettered access to the GB market, which we addressed accordingly with the Committee.
Despite this instrument delivering no substantive changes to policy, there has been stakeholder engagement, including public consultation on how the retained legislation should be reframed to fit the UK context and how those necessary changes should be approached. Views on changes to food information to consumers rules were sought under the “Food labelling: amending laws” consultation in 2018. Honey and caseins labelling options were considered in a separate public consultation in 2018 and in discussions during stakeholder meetings. There has also been regular consultation with the UK wine and spirits industry and with the designated competent control bodies: the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland.
I am pleased to say that the devolved Administrations have been informed throughout the making of this SI and that they are content. I beg to move.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, this legislation reads like a stopgap—a set of rules that will apply for a fixed period of time while more detailed solutions are sought. For that reason I want to concentrate on the route map that it sets out and, in particular, the impact it will have on the wine industry. I appreciate that rolling over the EU legislation has posited issues in this area: first, that rules on products placed in the EU market now apply to the UK as a third country since we left the EU; and, secondly, that the withdrawal Act itself does not grant the power to amend the EU rules at this stage.
The wine industry is very important to the UK economy. It provides around 130,000 jobs, generates £11 billion in sales annually and returns £4.4 billion in duty paid to the Exchequer. Our wine exports are the sixth most important food and drink products exported—ahead of beef, pork and beer—and those exports go mainly to the EU. While we have a burgeoning English and Welsh wine industry, we export only about 5,500 bottles a year of home-produced wine. The vast bulk of our wine exports are as a result of our importing bulk wines from the USA, Australia and Chile, bottling them in the UK and then exporting those bottles primarily to the EU. There is an obvious question I must ask the Minister in relation to the proposed Australia trade deal: with 24% of our non-EU wine imports coming in bulk from Australia—much for re-export into the EU—is the current wine trade deal we have with Australia under reconsideration? This is a sector that could damage our own export business if additional trade barriers were to be put in place in any new trade deal.
I understand that there are also issues relating to labelling for the re-exporting trade to the EU. The EU Commission has expressed concern that including details of a non-EU importer, bottler or producer address in addition to an EU importer, bottler or producer on the label of a wine placed in the EU market could be misleading and incompatible with EU law. I would be grateful if, in replying, the Minister could explain how the Government intend to resolve this difference of view between the UK and EU and what the major barriers are to a resolution. The UK drinks 10 million to 12 million bottles of wine a day, and we are the second largest importer in the world by volume, after Germany, and by value, after the USA. Given the importance of the industry and the fact that we are rolling over the EU regulations in this area—now as a third country—there are important issues about adding cost to the business activity.
At the end of the grace period, businesses will no longer be able to use one label for both the UK and EU markets. This affects the 56% of our wine that we import from the EU, which is about 6 million to 7 million bottles a day. That means 6 million to 7 million extra labels to be put on bottles every day, labels which will generally be placed on bottles by the EU exporter rather than the importer. EU wine exporters bottle their wine and then lay them on skins—that is, label-free. Labels are affixed after the purchase order has been received. The cost of producing and affixing each extra label runs to about 12p on average. Wines that are sold in limited quantities will require hand labelling, which is a much more expensive operation. That cost will be passed on to the importer and, ultimately, the consumer in this country. So, at a stroke, that is over £700,000 a day of extra cost passed on to GB wine businesses. While these regulations provide a grace period on EU imports, can the Minister explain whether the Government intend to review the dual labelling requirement before September 2022, so as to remove cost from the businesses working in this area?
Finally, I would like to examine the difference in these regulations between the requirements for wine and those of other food and drink importers. Under the EU regulations, all food and drink imports except for wine require the address of the operator responsible for the food information, under whose name or business name the food is marketed. The food business operator can be any business within the supply chain as long as they are an established business which will take legal responsibility for placing the goods on the market. This is a much more flexible approach than the requirement for wine. Making the rules for wine the same as other food and drink products would simplify the rules for producers, importers and enforcement bodies. Can the Minister state whether this is the Government’s intention? I recognise that I have asked some very technical questions, so I would be happy to receive a written reply if the Minister cannot reply to me in detail today.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the Commission on Alcohol Harm, and I previously chaired the 2006-07 Science and Technology Select Committee on allergy.
Having left the EU, we could be doing better to provide all the relevant information people need for their purchasing decisions. For those with a food allergy, labelling is essential to survival. The burden of allergy is in infants, in whom the prevalence is 5% to 7%. There is a range of manifestations, from a rash to life-threatening anaphylaxis. In adults, the prevalence is 1% to 2% and persists through life. The LEAP—Learning Early About Peanut Allergy—study built on desensitization. In addition, many adults have intolerance to some foods but do not have an IgE-mediated allergic reaction.
As there is no universal threshold amount that triggers an allergic reaction, some manufacturers resorted to defensive labelling, but this is of almost no help to those with an allergy. Although food labelling requires documenting known allergens—such as egg, milk, nuts, shellfish, fish and so on—the profile of allergens is changing. For example, the incidence of peanut allergy has risen dramatically in recent decades. Can the Minister reassure us that there will be flexibility in approach and that labelling will be reviewed in three years’ time?
Looking at the labelling of honey, will these regulations ensure that all honey is 100% pure honey from bees, and cannot be called “honey” if it is bolstered by syrups?
Eating out is particularly hazardous for those with food allergies. Teenagers and young adults sometimes take dangerously high risks when buying food, and we have heard of tragic deaths in young people all too often. Can the Minister explain how food outlets will be required to ensure that the food they serve is appropriately labelled, as it is not in these regulations?
The Commission on Alcohol Harm recommended better alcohol labelling. Currently, 80% of people do not know the Chief Medical Officer’s weekly consumption guidelines. Similarly, 80% of people are unaware of the calorie content of common drinks. They do not know that a small glass of wine has the same calories as three Jaffa Cakes or that one pint of beer is equivalent to eating a Mars bar. In the EU, alcohol has been exempt from labelling requirements that apply to all other food and drinks, so alcohol product labels are devoid of information on ingredients, calories, nutrition, drinking guidelines or health warnings. Covid-19 revealed that obesity is linked to high death rates. Severe obesity is rightly called “morbid obesity”. Information empowers consumers to take control of their health and make informed choices about what and how much they consume.
Research from the Alcohol Health Alliance has demonstrated the inadequacy of alcohol labels. Despite the Government’s efforts to encourage alcohol producers to reflect the drinking guidelines on labels, more than 70% of the labels reviewed did not include the up-to-date guidelines and only 7% displayed full nutritional information, including calories. Yet, when asked, 75% of people want the number of units in a product on alcohol labels, and 61% want calorie information.
The Government are committed to reducing obesity, so why are alcoholic drinks not included in the regulations? Why is only wine included and why does wine labelling restrict itself to the provenance of the wine? Will sulphites still have to appear on the label? They can be potent allergens. Better alcohol labelling should form part of an obesity strategy and a comprehensive alcohol strategy. If the role of food labelling is to inform, to empower people to protect themselves from harm and to allow regulation to support that duty to protect our citizens from harm, updating the labelling becomes a moral imperative.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness. I broadly welcome the regulations, but I have a number of questions. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on her clear introduction, but am I right that a grace period will now apply for the GB market until the end of September 2022, but there is no grace period for those products, particularly wine, being placed on the EU market from 1 January 2021? Those products now need to comply with the current EU labelling rules as we are a third country?
I am grateful to the Wine and Spirit Trade Association for its briefing in preparation for this afternoon. It has pointed other the SI includes a provision that means that businesses will no longer be able to use one label for the UK and EU markets at the end of the grace period—30 September 2022—for products placed on the GB market. It is calling on the Government to change the inherited EU wine labelling rules to allow businesses to use one label for both the UK and EU markets and to help ensure that the UK remains a hub for the world wine trade. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord German, for setting this out. I do not intend to repeat what he said, but this is a significant local, domestic and global trade.
There is a very simple plea from the Wine and Spirit Trade Association that the problem could be solved if the UK removed the requirement for the term “bottled by” or “imported by” and simply required a UK address on the label, as is currently allowed for food and drink, making one label acceptable for both the UK and EU markets. Otherwise, the rules as currently being rolled over will require a UK address on the label, preceded by one of the terms outlined in EU law, such as “bottled by”, with a UK address, or “imported by”, with a UK address. The EU will not accept any labels with those terms on if they are accompanied by the address of a third country.
For importers, either their producer will need to add a UK-specific label or a UK importer will need to have an over-sticker. Exporters will need to label stocks specifically for the EU market. This requirement for different SKUs for different markets means different labels, which, as the noble Lord, Lord German, pointed out, will increase costs for designing, printing and logistics. Simply put, if a business has 200 products, that means 200 additional labels. In addition, most businesses do not know where their stock is going when they add their labels. Over-stickering is very expensive for businesses as, in nearly all cases, it has to be done by hand. The more businesses have to change labels, the more expenses they need to incur. Businesses are usually given two years to allow for such label changes. I urge my noble friend the Minister to look very sympathetically on this idea of going to one label, as set out by the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, in her summing up.
My noble friend the Minister also referred to the report prepared by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which said that those are real-world effects on food information and the way in which it is presented to consumers, as set out in the regulations. For example, in relation to the origin of meat—excluding beef, which is dealt with in separate legislation—the instrument will require the use of a non-UK, rather than a non-EU origin designator. That new requirement does not preclude the use of a designator showing the specific country of origin. I welcome the fact that a 21-month adjustment period is given to give businesses time to adjust to the new requirement, and also applies to Wales and Scotland.
I should like to put a question to my noble friend regarding the fact that consumers will no longer be able to tell whether meat, excluding beef, is from the EU or not after the adjustment period. That will have the potential to reduce the key information available at present about the origin of a product and, therefore, about associated food standards. In response to questions from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Defra told it that,
“further steps will be taken to continue unfettered access for Northern Ireland food products to the GB market”.
Can she set out what the separate measures will be and when they might be taken? Will the House have the chance to scrutinise them before they come into effect?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, as I often seem to do in Committee. I should like to express the Green group’s support for the expert concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, both on the issue of allergens and the inadequacy of alcohol labelling.
The policy background paper for this statutory instrument states that the aim is,
“to provide and make use of the same information, presented in the same way as before.”
However, as the Minister said in her introduction, there are real-world implications in the regulations. There are changes in the information that will be available to consumers, which is why your Lordships’ House insisted that this Committee considers this SI, even though it was not considered in the other place. It is clear that it weakens the information going to consumers.
I shall start with honey. We are talking about shifting to a label that states, “A blend of honeys from more than one country”, or similar words. Knowing whether a honey is sourced from within the European Union or the rest of the world is a significant issue for a number of reasons. One issue to which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay referred is that honey is one of the most faked products in the world—by one ranking the third most-faked product. That problem is most common in countries that produce honey on an industrial scale, notably China. Historically, it was difficult to detect whether alleged honey had been adulterated or contained no honey at all, with substitutes such as corn syrup, rice syrup and palm sugar being used. This is an issue of transparency. Obviously, people should be getting what they actually pay for but this is also an issue of health. Rice syrup contains considerably higher levels of arsenic, which in many cases can be found in drinking water, for example. The fructose in corn syrup has issues around obesity, such as those to which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, referred.
There is also the issue of concern to many consumers regarding what bees have been eating to produce the honey and whether, in order to extract unsustainable amounts of honey, they are being fed sugars such as, again, corn syrup, which studies have shown are linked to colony collapse disorder. I note that just last month in the United States, thousands of commercial beekeepers started a major court case, highlighting their concern about the damage being done to them by imports from China.
So I would say that if we are shifting from “produced in the EU” to just “produced in a range of countries”, we are significantly reducing the information, the choice, available to consumers and preventing them making choices about health and the conditions under which their food is produced. While the European arrangements are no doubt far from perfect, they are stronger—there are more controls on the production of honey—than in the US, let alone other countries.
I come to the second group I will address, on meat issues. As the noble Lord, Lord German, mentioned, this brings us to the issue of a free trade deal with Australia. I note that in Prime Minister’s Questions this morning, responding to the right honourable Ian Blackford, the Prime Minister was sending very positive signals about a potential Australian trade deal and suggesting that we could be exporting Scottish beef to Australia. I would have to ask: what is the point in swapping meat, with all the environmental costs of shipping goods, particularly refrigerated goods, around the world? I should perhaps declare my position as an agricultural science graduate from an Australian university who has worked on Australian beef farms, and this really does seem to be sending coals to Newcastle.
Again, we come to non-beef meat and minced meat excluding beef. If we go from a label that says “produced in the EU” to “produced anywhere in the world”, we are providing consumers with less information. Surely this labelling could have been “produced in the UK”, “produced in Europe” or “produced in non-European countries”. Those three labels would have given consumers far better levels of information.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction and am grateful to her officials for providing a briefing on this extremely complex statutory instrument, which is all about the labelling of a wide variety of products. Although the Brexit transition period has finished, this is a transitional SI and covers an additional period, providing a 21-month adjustment period for businesses to be able to comply with import product labelling. The products under discussion are caseins, or milk products, which nobody has so far mentioned and which are the ones for human consumption, honey, meat and minced meat and trimmings, excluding beef, and wine.
The instrument concerns relabelling of products with the name of their UK importer and the information on prepacked food, including blended honey. The Explanatory Memorandum states at paragraph 2.12:
“EU-centric rules will not be appropriate for the UK.”
This may well be true for some people, but there are consumers who will want to know where the produce covered in this SI has come from and how it has arrived on market shelves. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, raised the issue of allergens, and it is extremely important that this information is included on labelling; I declare my interest as an allergy sufferer myself.
While trying to separate ourselves from the EU and its legislation, it is important accurately to reflect the provenance of consumables. As my noble friend Lord German indicated, much of the wine imported to the UK will be bottled here, relabelled and then exported again, mainly to the EU. The same is likely to happen to honey in terms of blending. I should like the Minister’s reassurance that honey, which has a particular identity and flavour and is produced in a specific locality, will be correctly labelled and not blended with inferior honey or syrup, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, said. Such a practice of blending is likely to destroy, not enhance, consumer confidence.
Paragraph 12.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“There is no … impact on the public sector.”
However, trading standards officers will be inspecting wine and prepacked food to ensure that it is correctly labelled as to the proper UK importer. Therefore, there will be additional work for the local authority officers. However, trading standards officers are not permitted to take any action if they find that products have not been correctly labelled until after the end of the transition period. I find this disturbing.
While I understand that this is to allow businesses to make a smooth change to their labelling, there is a likelihood that this could lead to confusion and misinformation not being dealt with but left until the very last date before enforcement action could be taken. Does the Minister think this is acceptable?
I have one very serious issue that I wish to raise. On Monday, during the debate on the Queen’s Speech, the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park—gave an assurance to those Peers who raised issues concerning animal welfare that the UK intended to be a world leader in that area. Paragraph 7.6 of the EM refers to meat excluding beef. Its last sentence states:
“Instead, the amended legislation will allow the use of ‘non-UK’ where the country in which the period of rearing specified in this legislation according to species is not available or the indication ‘several countries’ in the case of meat reared in several non-UK countries.”
This is very confusing, and I apologise for that, but it is not my Explanatory Memorandum.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, referred to the importation of meat and meat products. Does the Minister believe that there is a golden thread that puts animal welfare at the heart of all Defra’s work and that this statutory instrument upholds this view and ensures that meat reared in non-UK countries will indeed have come from animals reared in accordance with UK standards and not from inferior rearing practices? Unless she can give this reassurance, all the Government’s words on animal welfare are fairly meaningless. This apart, I support this statutory instrument.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for arranging the very helpful briefing with her officials in advance of today’s debate. This SI is, clearly, largely about labelling, and the Minister referenced the “real world” effects on consumers that may occur. However, I draw attention to paragraph 2.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which shows that these “real world” effects are minor. As already raised in the other place, we are not convinced that all of these effects are necessarily minor. The changes provided for in the SI, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, reminded us, were originally presented as a negative instrument, which was then recommended for upgrade to the affirmative procedure by the sifting committee, as the subject matter was considered sufficiently sensitive as to need to be properly considered.
There has been a lot of discussion about honey, so I am going to consider meat labelling at this point. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, pointed out that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted that meat, excluding beef, will be labelled as “non-UK” rather than “non-EU”. While we accept that some EU-centric terms or rules may no longer be wholly appropriate after the transition period, moving towards a system where food items are labelled merely as “non-UK”, rather than “non-EU”, risks an overall decrease in the information available to consumers. The committee was quite specific on this point. It stated that
“as consumers will no longer be able to tell whether meat (excluding beef) is from the EU or not after the adjustment period, this may have the potential of reducing key information that is available at present about the origin of a product and therefore about the associated food standards.”
I support the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, about the potential impact on animal welfare. These may well be unintended consequences of the changes, but these are consequences that really need to be looked at when we consider the higher standards of production in the EU compared with many other countries. Why do the Government wish to remove this information from labels?
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also pointed out, as has already been mentioned, that, after the adjustment period, different requirements will apply in GB and Northern Ireland, where EU requirements will continue to apply as a result of the Northern Ireland protocol—as with so many other SIs we have debated. Defra did tell the committee, as we have heard, that further steps will be taken to continue unfettered access for NI food products to the GB market, so perhaps I can also ask the Minister, as other noble Lords have, whether she could outline what these steps will be.
On devolution, the changes relate to England, with similar provisions planned by Wales and Scotland. As it has been some time since the SI was first tabled, can the Minister provide any update on progress in the devolved Administrations?
Consultation is an area in which I am always particularly interested. I was pleased to note that this was mentioned by the Minister in her opening remarks. The Explanatory Memorandum, in paragraph 10, does make it clear that the consultation was some time ago, at the end of 2018.
I will mention briefly the changes to wine labelling. The Wine and Spirit Trade Association, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, is not entirely happy, and the noble Lord, Lord German, explained in great detail the importance of the wine industry, so I will not go into any detail. Paragraph 10.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum talks about “regular contact”, so, again, perhaps I could ask the Minister for a little more information on this because, as I have just mentioned, the consultation was some time ago and it would be helpful to have an update on the kinds of discussions with industry organisations that have taken place since then.
Paragraph 12 of the Explanatory Memorandum also talks about the changes for businesses contained in the instrument. Costs were mentioned by other noble Lords and, while they may not meet the threshold that requires publication of an impact assessment, changing labelling laws undoubtedly presents logistical and financial challenges, in particular for smaller producers. So perhaps I can ask the Minister whether Defra has estimated such costs and whether she will be able to provide us with details. Clearly this is something that she may well not have at her fingertips, so I would be very grateful if she could write to me with more detail.
Finally, the new rules are quite complex—this came across in the briefing we had with officials yesterday—with the varying transitional periods and adjustments, so what support has been put in place for not just industry but trading standards? In conclusion, we do not oppose these changes, but believe that some of the potential consequences should be given greater consideration.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate, in particular for the questions they have asked that raise important issues. Some of them I cannot answer today, but I will write with further details if I have not been able to cover everything.
To ensure the continued operability of our food labelling rules and to reflect the fact that the UK is no longer a member of the EU, it is important that we amend certain retained and domestic food legislation and provide transitional arrangements to allow businesses time to adjust.
The noble Lord, Lord German, asked a number of questions about wine. Wines that are exported to the EU would be required to meet areas of the label that are considered mandatory under EU labelling requirements. These requirements are for wines that have been rebottled here. They include indications of the provenance—for example, “Wine of Australia” et cetera—alcoholic strength, the category of wine, lot marking and so on. As with foods, wines marketed in GB will also have to have a GB-based importer or bottler on the label. To allow time for the sector to adjust, we have included that easement until 30 September 2022, and during that time we will continue to work with the industry to find a long-term solution to the issue of potentially having to produce two labels. We will look for practical solutions that will allow two importers to be shown on a single label, where necessary, but make them distinguishable to address the EU’s concerns. We will look at all options for labelling importers on wines, including alignment with horizontal rules.
The fine wine trade is an unusual industry, as the noble Lord knows, in terms of its marketing practices, with wines traded widely for years after production. We are aware of the unique challenges that certain areas of the wine industry face. The easement and transitional measures will, for the time being, address any concerns, but we will consider this in the interim. It is fair to say that both the UK, as possibly the single largest trader in fine wine today, and the EU, as the largest fine wine producer, have a vested interest in finding a solution.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked a number of questions relating to obesity and calorie labelling, and asked why we are not using this opportunity to make more substantive changes to food labelling law in the UK. The purpose of this legislation, along with other exit SIs, is to maintain operability of retained EU law in the UK, and legislative action beyond that function is prescribed under the powers used to make this SI. More substantive changes, should we choose to make them, will follow an appropriate period of consultation and assessment involving all interested parties.
We have the opportunity to review food and wine labelling now that we are no longer bound by EU rules to ensure that information supports consumers’ choices and the marketing of quality British food and wine products. The opportunity to review food labelling will include careful consideration of the findings in the final report of Henry Dimbleby’s independent review of the food system, due later this year. The Department of Health is planning to issue a consultation on calorie labelling for alcohol in the near future with a view to making it a requirement from perhaps 2024, which may be reassuring to the noble Baroness. Specific proposals on this will be consulted on later this year.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Bennett, and a number of other noble Lords referred to honey. All honey available in the UK market complies with our strict rules and the addition of syrups is prohibited in those regulations. Honeys from particular locations or special floral origins are not blended since they lose their value in the market, and if they are, they can no longer be referred to by their specific origin in the label. The noble Baronesses also asked whether consumers would be less well informed about where the honey they buy comes from. Consumers will still be aware that the honey consists of a variety of honey from differing origins even though they will not be able to distinguish blends of European honey from non-European blends, but businesses would be free to supplement the label with this additional information.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, also asked a question on why we did not use this opportunity to make more substantive changes to the food labelling law in the UK, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and she asked about what engagement we had had with industry. A public consultation entitled “Food labelling: amending laws” was held and promoted to food industry stakeholders at the end of 2018, and the government response was published on 5 February 2019. Alongside this we have released a broader Defra communication about food information to consumers on labelling in a no-deal scenario. Discussions continued via a range of stakeholder meetings, where industry and trade associations were encouraged to share information about their plans to adjust labelling on pre-packaged food for the UK and EU markets to flag other no-deal changes that might have affected their labelling, and to give views on what government can do to help businesses make the required labelling amendments.
We have maintained a constant dialogue and engagement with key wine production, trade and enforcement organisations in the time leading up to the end of the transition period. We have been in regular contact with the Wine and Spirit Trade Association and WineGB, which represent the majority of wine sector businesses in the UK, and the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland, the designated competent controlled bodies. So these discussions are ongoing, which I hope will also be of comfort to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman.
The noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Bennett, asked how EU-centric labelled food from Northern Ireland would be provided unfettered access to GB after the period of adjustment. This will be considered during the period of adjustment. Goods meeting the legal criteria of qualifying Northern Ireland goods will be allowed unfettered access into the GB market. This will be considered further, and implementation, including how it is administered, will be determined and informed through consultation with Northern Ireland businesses and UK enforcement authorities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked why we are not allowing mincemeat placed on the GB market to continue to use “origin EU” as a permitted alternative to the specific country of origin. Since we are no longer a member state of the EU, the rules on labelling must treat food from EU countries the same as that from other WTO countries. This means that, for example, where for mincemeat from outside the UK the specific country of origin is not given, the correct indication is “non-UK”. To provide for a special indication for meat from the EU would be seen as more favourable treatment than for other WTO countries and therefore contrary to WTO most favoured nation rules. This position also aligns with UK law already in place for a range of other foods, including beef and veal, and it is important for both business and consumers that the rules for different foods remain consistent.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked about paragraph 7.11 in the Explanatory Memorandum. This specific provision applies only if the product would have been correctly labelled and complied with the law in GB immediately before the end of the transition period. It essentially provides a period of adjustment both for enforcement bodies and for producers to use up already labelled stock.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Hayman, asked an important question about whether this was part of Defra’s golden thread of legislation to improve animal welfare outcomes. This SI makes necessary changes immediately related to the EU legislation being retained as per ministerial undertakings in relation to the EUWA powers under which it is to be made. Measures around the Government’s ambition to improve animal welfare outcomes are being taken forward separately. Defra’s animal welfare team would be very happy to put your Lordships in touch with those leading on the consultation on animal welfare-related food labelling.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked about the assessment of cost to the industry. The purpose of this SI is to make legislation retained by the withdrawal Act operable in the UK context. There are no other changes to the effect of retained legislation other than operability and, therefore, no significant impacts that stem specifically from this SI. During the consultation held, business expressed a wish for a reasonable period of adjustment to the changes so that they could be made as part of normal packaging cycles and to enable stocks of existing packaging to be exhausted. The 21-month or 36-month periods of adjustment provided in the SI allow for this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, also asked about consultation with the devolved Administrations. Amendments to retained direct EU legislation will apply across the UK, although not in Northern Ireland because of the Northern Ireland protocol. Wales and Scotland have provided formal consent and, while formal consent is not required from Northern Ireland, it has been consulted. England-only provisions enabling a period of adjustment for labelling in England will align with similar provisions planned for Wales and Scotland.
To wrap up on the consultation that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, talked about, I just reassure her again that we have released a broader Defra communication about food information to consumers and discussions are continuing via a range of stakeholder meetings. Industry and trade associations are encouraged to share information about their plans to adjust labelling on pre-packaged food in the UK and the EU markets, to flag other no-deal changes that may affect their labelling and to give views on what the Government can do to help business make the required labelling amendments.
With that, I reiterate my thanks to all noble Lords for contributing to this debate. Any questions that I have not been able to answer at the Dispatch Box I will answer in writing.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
As we do not seem to have the Minister for the debate on the next statutory instrument—we have the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Mann—I will adjourn the Grand Committee until the Minister is here.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. All Members are here in person, and I ask them to respect social distancing. The time limit for the following debate is one hour.
Mobile Homes (Requirement for Manager of Site to be Fit and Proper Person) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh
That the Grand Committee do consider the Mobile Homes (Requirement for Manager of Site to be Fit and Proper Person) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
I beg to move that the House consider the draft Mobile Homes (Requirement for Manager of Site to be Fit and Proper Person) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021, which were laid before the House on 22 March 2021.
My Lords, the purpose of these regulations is to amend the Mobile Homes (Requirement for Manager of Site to be Fit and Proper Person) (England) Regulations 2020 to correct an error in that instrument. Specifically, these new regulations change the reference in Regulation 3(5)(a) to the Local Government Finance Act. The year of this Act was incorrectly given as 1992, and this is now amended to show the correct year, which is 1988.
On 23 September 2020, we made principal regulations to prohibit the use of land in England as a relevant protected caravan site—a site on which year-round residential occupation is allowed—unless the relevant local authority is satisfied that the owner or manager of the site is a fit and proper person to manage it. This will be guided by a fit and proper person test.
I will set out the reasons for the reference to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 in the principal regulations made on 23 September. The fit and proper person requirement does not include sites that are operated by local authorities; operated for holiday purposes only; exempt from requiring a site licence; or being occupied by members of the same family and not run as a commercial residential site.
To determine if a site is a commercial residential site, a local authority will take into consideration both the amount that any person is required to pay the site owner in respect of the right to station a caravan, to reside, or use the common areas of the site, and whether that amount exceeds a fair contribution towards the relevant costs.
Part of the definition of relevant costs in the principal regulations is:
“any amount which the occupier”—
who for the purpose of this debate we will refer to as the site owner—
“is liable to pay as regards the site by way of a non-domestic rate under Part 3 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992”.
The reference to the Local Government Finance Act 1992 is an error, as it is Part 3 of the Local Government Act 1988 that deals with non-domestic rates. This amendment is therefore necessary to ensure that local authorities are able properly to apply the intended exemption from the fit and proper person test requirements for non-commercial, family occupied sites when the principal regulations come into force on 1 July and 1 October this year. I emphasise that these regulations will not amend or affect any other aspects of the principal regulations, which were laid before noble Lords last year.
To conclude, the fit and proper person test requirements form part of the comprehensive programme of work that we announced in 2018 to drive up standards of management and conduct across the park homes sector and ensure that residents’ rights are respected. Good site owners who already provide a professional service will not be concerned about being unable to meet the required standards. The minority who continue to abuse and exploit residents will have to improve or make way for more professional people to manage the site. The fit and proper person test will also be a useful addition to local authorities’ existing powers to help them tackle the worst offenders in the sector. I commend these regulations to the House.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I wholeheartedly back this important change to the legislation. If the law is not operable because it is technically wrong, it will create many foreseen circumstances that will be negative to those living in park homes.
Specifically, having had a number of battles over the rights of park home residents—there has been some horrific stuff—I wanted to ask two questions of the Minister in welcoming the Government’s approach. He may not be able to answer now, but I should be keen to get the information. How many local authorities to date have challenged in any way the fitness of an owner, and which ones? What are the Government doing to monitor whether local authorities are choosing to use the powers available to them?
In terms of the severity of the incidents that I have personally dealt with, one is talking about things that are almost beyond description such as forced removal of tenants, arbitrary removal from tenants of core services such as electricity, or the sending of people of dubious motive to persuade tenants to pay unauthorised money or not pursue complaints. Those are fairly heavy-handed acts against people who are often relatively vulnerable and have got themselves into situations where they are living on such sites not out of choice but from economic necessity because of major financial mishaps—for example, a company going bankrupt. In a previous life in the other House, I have dealt with a majority of residents living in such accommodation for such reasons. For them, this is a major issue and I suspect that there are others in a similar situation in other parts of the country. I should therefore be keen to know if the Minister can assist.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I endorse the comments of my noble friend Lord Mann and look forward to the Minister’s responses to those points. Obviously, I supported the main order when we discussed it last September, and I am very happy to approve this one today.
My only question here concerns the error and how it was detected. How did the error happen? I assume that it was just a mistake. How was it detected, and what would the consequences have been if it had not been detected? It would be quite useful to find that out. In my 11 years in the House I have done lots of SIs and I do not recall ever doing one where we had to come back because we had got the name of the Act wrong. In this case, it does not seem to be too much of a problem, but potentially it could be very serious in other situations. With that, however, I am happy to approve it.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we have had a short but informative debate this afternoon. I am grateful for the insightful and helpful contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Mann and Lord Kennedy. I have been in the House for a relatively short time and work as a Minister across two departments, and I have now had two issues with SIs where we have had to come back and repeat them. One was in the Home Office, and it was a little unfortunate; we had to almost redo things. This is now in my other department, HCLG. I am fairly sure that this was a cock-up rather than a conspiracy. I had to determine that it was caused by an error, because it was not offered up particularly as something that people wanted to dwell on. However, the consequences are very minimal, because the fit and proper regulations have not come into force yet; we have nipped it in the bud. So I think we should be reassured that this was a genuine error; it has been picked up and there are no consequences.
To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Mann, I do not have the specifics on the number of authorities that have challenged the fitness of individuals who run these sites. I shall need to get back to the noble Lord after I find out whether we have any figures, and I shall certainly write to him with the information that we do have. There is no doubt that local authorities are very much in the front line of implementing this, and we are providing them with a quite considerable degree of support and guidance to ensure that they understand how to implement these important regulations to ensure that we get the people we want in this sector and get rid of the rogues. We are encouraging them to share information, so that an individual who is known to be a troublemaker is then put on a list so that other local authorities can pick that up.
In conclusion, these regulations are to correct a small error to the principal regulations that we made on 23 September. I reiterate that the majority of site owners are responsible and compliant, and make a valuable contribution to the park homes sector and the housing market, providing well-maintained and safe sites for their residents. But we recognise that a minority do knowingly flout their responsibilities, and these regulations are designed to deal with that. The residents deserve our protection and support. I am glad that noble Lords recognise this, and I am very pleased that we have been able to correct this small error in time.
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask all Members to respect social distancing and if the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House. Oral Questions will now commence. I ask that those asking supplementary questions keep them to no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points. I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Care Homes: Insurance Indemnity
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the merits of underwriting insurance indemnity for all care homes on an equivalent basis to the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, the differing indemnity and insurance arrangements for the NHS and for care homes reflect the different systems of securing health and adult social care. For the NHS, there are established indemnity schemes, administered by NHS Resolution. In the care sector, providers purchase insurance from commercial insurance markets. This is a requirement of registration with the Care Quality Commission.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]
My Lords, due to Covid, many care homes have found insurance prohibitively expensive, hard or even impossible to find, and that which is available often not covering Covid. Yesterday, I spoke to a care home manager who was told that renewing his existing insurance would cost 880% more than the previous year, and just one Covid claim could result in the care home having to close its doors, causing great distress and disruption to residents and their families. Against this backdrop, can the Minister say what plans the Government have to extend indemnity to all care homes for a reasonable period, not simply the small number now covered as part of the designated care site schemes, to put them on an equal footing with the NHS and ensure that they are able to help the NHS during any third wave? Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss the options?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I acknowledge the challenge faced by care homes on the insurance market, but CQC statistics suggest that, in fact, the insurance industry has done an enormous amount to meet the needs of care homes and that many of the pressures on care homes have been the result of Covid outbreaks. We have brought in the designated settings indemnity support, as the noble Baroness knows, and we have given £6 billion to local authorities to support care homes. Putting care homes on the same footing as the NHS would not meet the needs of the care home sector, so that is not something we are looking at currently.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, the Financial Times warned in January that care homes were having to turn away new patients as they struggled and failed to get liability insurance to cover Covid-related claims. There is also huge speculation that a flood of claims is coming as pre-existing claims management companies and many set up purely to deal with Covid-19 cases are vying for business for personal injury claims and compensation for the loss of a loved one. What assessment has the Minister made of the risk that Covid-related litigation poses to the sustainability of the whole social care sector?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, in the year from March 2020, the number of patients has in fact increased from 457,000 to 458,000. The CQC is monitoring the situation extremely closely and its data from the insurance industry suggests that, although there has been some pressure on some companies, there have also been new entrants and the amount of support available to the social care sector is resilient.
Lord Laming (CB) [V]
The Minister has a very good understanding that many of the residents in residential care homes are unable, because of their condition, to comprehend the significance of the coronavirus. At this stage in their lives, when they are at their most vulnerable, many have felt that they have been abandoned and are now unloved. Can the Minister tell the House, if the insurance indemnity is not acceptable, what other possibilities are being considered by the Government so as to ensure that the awful experiences of some residents in the past year will never be repeated?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord speaks movingly of the plight of many people in care and I agree with his sentiment—it has been a very difficult year indeed—but we cannot blame the insurance industry for the pressures that have been put on residents. On the specific point about residents receiving visitors, which has, I think, been attributed to problems with insurance, I remind the noble Lord that 82.5% of care homes in England are now able to accommodate residents, compared with 40% at the beginning of March—a very large increase.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the financial viability of many homes has become precarious during the pandemic. What mechanism is in place to monitor the level of premiums and any homes in danger of closing because of this problem? What contingency measures are in place to care for the residents who might lose their homes as a consequence?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, in terms of monitoring, Care Quality Commission data indicates that pressures are being felt by the insurance industry, but these are not translating into reduced capacity, service closures or quality concerns. There is, in fact, a growth in the number of home care agencies since March 2020; for instance, in the east Midlands, there has been a growth in capacity of 9.4%. These are reassuring figures and we are monitoring the situation extremely closely.
Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]
My Lords, there are still many inconsistencies between the NHS and social care. Specifically, will the Government ensure that there is a level playing field between the two in terms of insurance and indemnity?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I do not need to remind the noble Baroness that there are profound inconsistencies between the NHS and social care. They are organised completely differently, and the insurance arrangements reflect that. The noble Baroness is right that we are looking for parity of outcome between the two. That is very much our commitment and this is one area in which we are striving to achieve that.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
Many care homes felt that they were thrown under a bus early in the pandemic when, without adequate personal protection equipment in place, the Government transferred infected but untested hospital patients into homes and many otherwise healthy residents were lost through no fault of the homes. As future pandemics may happen, is it not a matter of fairness that care homes and hospices should have their indemnity insurance underwritten in the same way as the NHS does?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord is right to point to provisions for the future and for future pandemics—or any future waves. I reassure him that arrangements are in place to ensure the safe transition of patients and residents from the NHS to care home and back again, but that is not a reason to turn the insurance arrangements of the care home industry on their head. Care homes simply cannot have the kind of risk-pooling arrangements that suit major NHS institutions.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, huge numbers of care homes are very dangerously financially leveraged, having been bought by private equity over the last decade, when at least £1.7 billion was ploughed into these purchases. Interest payments are heavy and insurance payments going up will add to their burden. Can the Minister assure us that before local authorities pay these privately owned, leveraged care homes, the CQC or some organisation will examine the financial stability of individual homes?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the financial stability of the care home sector is, as the noble Baroness rightly pointed out, something that we monitor extremely closely. There will, of course, always been new entrants and new departures from such a rich and varied sector. That is not something to be regretted; it brings innovation and new opportunities to the sector. She is right that the potential increase in insurance payments is something that we need to factor in to the finance. That is why we have brought in the designated settlement support scheme and increased the support from local authorities for social care.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, are there any estimates of how many care homes have gone under because of financial difficulties? How many have been closed down?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I do not have the precise number at my fingertips, but I can reassure the noble Lord that the proportion that has gone under in the last year is not dramatically higher than in previous years. We monitor the situation extremely closely. I am aware of the concerns of noble Lords about the financial position of the social care industry and we are taking very careful measures to ensure that we are on top of the financial monitoring situation.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now come to the second Oral Question.
Transport Decarbonisation Strategy
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Randerson
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they plan to publish their transport decarbonisation strategy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, we are working hard to finalise our bold and ambitious plan to decarbonise transport and expect to publish it shortly. We need to go further and faster to tackle emissions from the transport sector. The transport decarbonisation plan will set out a credible pathway to delivering transport’s contribution to carbon budgets and net zero by 2050.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I am glad that we will hear the details of the decarbonisation policy soon. Do the Government accept expert evidence given to the citizens’ Climate Assembly last year that to reach absolute zero by 2050 there has to be a two-pronged approach to road traffic: vehicle electrification and a reduction in car miles of between 2% and 4% a year? Previous government predictions have been for an increase in car miles. In the light of this new evidence, will the Minister reconsider the Government’s £27 billion road-building programme, which academics have recently criticised as being up to 100 times more carbon intensive than government predictions?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I reassure the noble Baroness that the £27 billion figure is not a road-building programme; it includes operating and maintenance of the strategic road network. She mentioned a two-pronged approach; this Government are taking a three-pronged approach, which we feel is better. The first area is technological improvements; for example, HGVs are very difficult to decarbonise, so we are going to spend £20 million on a zero-emission freight trial. The second area is regulation, where we are going to ban the sale of diesel vehicles from 2030. The third area is new behaviours—a modal shift. How do we get people on to public transport, cycling and walking?
The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend and her department are going further and faster. As part of that process, would they consider being much tougher on diesel hybrid cars, where the emissions are far worse than the manufacturers’ present figures, so that we can get emissions down to the right level?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My noble friend is right that we really must look at these plug-in hybrids and make sure that they do what they say on the tin. On ending the sale of diesel cars and vans in 2030, we will also consult on what zero-emission capability looks like, because some that would be for sale after 2030 could be said to have zero-emission capability—it is up to people to respond to that consultation and tell us what that actually means so that we can get carbon emissions down.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, battery and fuel cell technologies will both be needed to decarbonise transport. Why are the Government not showing the same leadership to make the UK the world leader in fuel cell technologies as they have shown in developing battery technologies, especially as in the UK we have some of the best scientists in the emerging science of fuel cells? I would be content if the Minister would much rather write to me and put a copy in the Library.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am very happy to answer that question right here, right now. The Government are a leader in hydrogen; we have invested £121 million in hydrogen innovation, which is supporting a world-class refuelling network which we are looking to expand. We are funding demonstration trials across all modes and driving the development of hydrogen vehicles and the hydrogen production supply chain. In transport alone, we are investing £23 million in various hydrogen interventions. We are going as fast as we can.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
I do not think the Minister answered the Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, on the road investment strategy. Why have the Government not published any assessment of the cumulative traffic and carbon impact of the strategy? Does the Minister accept that the estimated increase in traffic and CO2 emissions will negate 80% of the planned carbon savings from electric vehicles?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
We accept that there will have to be a very careful balance between traffic growth and the sorts of vehicles we have on our roads, which is why this Government are very focused on electric vehicles. On road enhancements, carbon is a key consideration in granting approval for new road enhancement programmes. I know that Highways England is a leader in innovation; for example, it uses cement-free concrete in much of its construction. I expect new developments in that area as technology drives innovation and change.
Lord Teverson (LD) [V]
My Lords, new houses being built today are not required to have electric charging points for vehicles. Why not?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, that is an excellent point. I will go away, find out and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, despite success in introducing hybrid buses in London, outside London 95% of buses in England are still diesel-powered. What will the Government do to introduce hybrid and zero-emission buses and rectify these disappointing figures?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, the Government are extremely ambitious in this area. We are not even bothering about hybrids—we are going straight for zero-emission vehicles. As part of the £3 billion announced prior to the bus strategy, we will invest to support 4,000 zero-emission buses across the country. In this year alone, we will invest £120 million in zero-emission vehicles, which we expect to support 500 buses. This is in addition to the £50 million we are giving to Coventry for 300 buses. We are making a good start. There is a way to go, but we will have supported 4,000 buses by the end of this Parliament.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, will my noble friend consider giving local communities much greater freedom to experiment with low-speed zones, road closures and other measures which might really encourage active travel locally? The more centralised system that we have at the moment takes an inordinate amount of time to navigate.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I accept my noble friend’s point, and we have had some good conversations about this in the past. I encourage him to wait for the transport decarbonisation plan; I suspect there will be a bit more about that in it. We want local authorities to take more control over carbon emissions in their area and their local transport strategies.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, according to the Department for Transport—a tad opportunistically—lockdown provided a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make lasting changes to how we make short journeys. The Minister said this would get people walking, cycling and on to public transport. Can she assure us that transport decarbon-isation will not exploit the new normal to reduce choice by imposing top-down green solutions, often at the expense of car drivers, as we have seen in the recent imposition of low-traffic neighbourhoods by councils despite rank and file community opposition and no consultation?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
A low-traffic neighbourhood cannot be introduced without consultation. Indeed, the Secretary of State specifically asked for the guidance to be rewritten very recently to ensure that all local authorities ensure adequate consultation in their communities, including with emergency services, to make sure that low-traffic neighbourhoods are a success.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, today’s Public Accounts Committee report suggests that the Government have a mountain to climb to achieve zero-emission car ownership. How will the Minister address the practical inequalities of access to charging points for those who do not have driveways or the financial means to install their own charging points?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Baroness highlights one of the key challenges in charging electric vehicles. It is why we have announced that we are investing £1.3 billion to accelerate the rollout of charging infrastructure. We recognise that not all people will be able to have a charger right outside their house; that is why we will work with local authorities and workplaces to provide chargers where we can.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am sure my noble friend is aware of the serious amount of carbon emissions caused by shipping. What discussions have the UK Government had internationally to encourage decarbonisation in this crucial sector?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
International maritime emissions do indeed need to be considered. As I think the noble Lord knows, we will include international shipping emissions in our carbon targets going forward in CB6. The Government have published two documents to date: the Maritime 2050 plan and the Clean Maritime Plan back in 2019. On 22 March, we announced the clean maritime demonstration competition—£20 million to fund feasibility studies and trials for zero-emission vessels and ports, some of which I expect to be driven by hydrogen.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, one of the biggest causes of carbon emissions in west London at the moment is the closure of Hammersmith Bridge, which has turned west London into a car park. Can the Minister move further and faster in reopening Hammersmith Bridge? I suggest a three-pronged approach: getting people together, knocking heads together and sorting it out.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My noble friend raises my very favourite topic, but I reassure him that it is neither my nor the Government’s decision whether to reopen the bridge. It is the decision of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. However, he may be reassured to know that four things need to happen—I will not bore noble Lords with what they are—and they should be completed by the end of June. We will ask the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham to reconsider the continued case for safe operation to see whether we can get this bridge back open by mid-July.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
UK Policy Implementation for Wales and Scotland
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wigley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government on what dates the Prime Minister will convene discussions with the First Ministers of Wales and Scotland regarding the co-ordinated implementation of the policies on which their respective governments were re-elected together with the implementation in Wales and Scotland of UK Government policies which impact on the responsibilities of the two devolved administrations.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister spoke to the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales, as well as the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, last week. In those discussions, he invited them to join him at a Covid recovery summit for discussion of shared challenges and future joint working.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, while I welcome the proposed meeting on Covid recovery, does the Minister accept that this dialogue should be in the context of a broader agenda, including a comprehensive reset of intergovernmental relationships? Is he aware that this is a fundamental issue in the context of the working of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act, which the Welsh Government regard as an unacceptable and unconstitutional encroachment on the devolution settlement? Do the UK Government recognise that a durable working relationship between the Governments depends on resolving this issue and establishing an acceptable system of co-decision-taking between the four nations? Will the Minister commit the UK Government to such an approach?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord’s welcome of the Prime Minister’s initiative. On intergovernmental relations, I laid a Statement before the House—I think on 21 March—on the significant progress made in those discussions. I am confident that further progress will be made on those co-operative instruments.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, our world-beating vaccination programme was a UK achievement. Our independence allowed us to move quickly and our size allowed us to buy big. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that, while it is perfectly legitimate for politicians to argue for a reset—as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, did—or democratic partition of this country, the focus must be on recovering from the worst economic trauma any of us has ever experienced?
Lord True (Con)
I absolutely agree with my noble friend. That is the commitment of the Prime Minister, and I have every hope that it will be the commitment of the other First Ministers and leading Ministers involved. Our nation gained enormously from the resources of the United Kingdom, including financial, Armed Forces, co-operative, technical and scientific ones. That lesson has not gone unnoticed by people in every corner of these isles.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I hope that the calling of this summit by the Prime Minister is a signal of a change of approach, and a signal that we are about to see a new era with a better balance of respect and co-ordination across the four nations of the United Kingdom. Given the economic responsibilities of the devolved Governments in relation to tax, the environment, climate change, skills and so on, will the economic recovery be top of the agenda at this summit? Also, will the summit be followed up by another event, with the Chancellor ensuring that the devolved Governments are fully integrated into the UK’s economic recovery following Covid-19?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, let us begin where we begin—with the forthcoming summit. I am grateful to the noble Lord for welcoming the Prime Minister’s initiative. I agree with what the noble Lord said about the fundamental importance of economic recovery. Again, repeating what I said earlier, I am sure that everyone in all parts of this kingdom will put their shoulders behind it.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
The Conservative Member of Parliament for Aberconwy promised Conwy County Borough Council at a recent meeting access to a £20 million capital sum from the levelling-up fund and £3 million from the community renewal fund. Money from the shared prosperity fund, he indicated, would go directly to that council. Is it government policy that Members of Parliament should be announcing largesse in this way? What discussions have there been or will there be with the Welsh Government about the sharing out of public money in Wales?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, with all respect, I regret to say that the minutes of Conwy County Borough Council are not on my reading list, but obviously I will add them to it instantly. The spending power will cover infrastructure, economic development, culture and sport, and will support education and training activities and exchanges in the UK and internationally. It will complement the devolved Administrations’ existing powers and will allow the UK Government to deliver investment more flexibly and dynamically. It will also strengthen the support given to citizens and businesses in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales without taking any responsibilities away from the devolved Administrations.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, although we absolutely accept that we must get over Covid and move towards an economic recovery, surely there is another urgency: the very future of the union. The Cabinet Secretary said that that was
“at the forefront of policy making in Whitehall”.
Surely this summit must also look at the review of intergovernmental relations and the workings of the internal market Act, as well as the issue of who spends the money in the devolved areas. Can the Minister assure us that the summit will look at enhancing the way in which the four nations work together so that we preserve the union, because there is some real urgency behind that too?
Lord True (Con)
Of course I thoroughly endorse what the noble Baroness says about the importance of the United Kingdom. It was a pleasure to see our two parties stand shoulder to shoulder on that issue in the recent elections north of the border. I have indicated that the Government attach importance to the IGR discussions and the way forward there. I cannot add anything more to that but I assure noble Lords that we will report to the House on further developments in that area. I take the noble Baroness’s point about the importance of the United Kingdom; that is absolutely paramount in everything that this Administration seek to do.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Policies and laws in and between England, Scotland and Wales are becoming increasingly devolved. Obviously that is the point of devolution and is only likely to increase after the recent election results. Is the Minister confident that the Government are providing sufficient support, particularly to English councils and police forces, to tackle the resulting issues? These range from, to give two examples, so-called smacking bans in Scotland and Wales but not in England—I have heard that this is creating problems for children’s services—to the fact that the possession of the extremely dangerous poison carbofuran, which is used regularly in the illegal slaughter of raptors in Scotland and England, is illegal in Scotland but not in England.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness went into a number of detailed issues. Given that the Green Party has, very sadly, endorsed the break-up of our United Kingdom, it comes oddly from her to suggest that things should not be different in Scotland from how they are in England.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I want to be helpful to the Minister—for a change. Is he aware that, when the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, was First Minister of Scotland and I was Minister of State, there was great co-operation between the devolved Administration there and the UK Government? Why are the Scotland Office and the Wales Office not involved at the forefront of co-operation at the moment? It would be a great improvement for co-operation between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations. I understand that the Minister has the ear of the Prime Minister. Could he whisper in that ear and say, “This would help to cement and improve relations between Westminster, Whitehall and the devolved Administrations, and would help to ensure that the United Kingdom continues with greater strength”?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that the Government always pay attention to the wise words of the noble Lord. I ascribe to him and the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, personally the success of Scottish Labour in Dumbarton; I am sure that they campaigned very strongly, and I thank them for that. We seek to progress together on all aspects of policy. I hope that that will be the message that comes out of the summit shortly. I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, says.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD) [V]
My Lords, the people of Wales and Scotland voted for their own Parliaments. The people have spoken and confirmed that first decision. The Prime Minister struggled to obtain any acceptable deal for leaving the European Union. If he believes in the democratic decision on Europe, why is he so slow and so eager to prevent the vote of the people of Scotland, Wales and perhaps other countries to enable the people of the four nations of the United Kingdom to decide their own future?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, in reference to the events referred to by the noble Lord, I seem to recall the result of the referendum in Wales; perhaps I mis-recall it. I repeat: the earnest of the Prime Minister, in his statesman-like offer and suggestion for a summit meeting to unite everybody in an effort to achieve recovery from the problems mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, should be supported by the whole House. I hope that it will be received in that spirit by the Governments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
Hitachi Rail: Rail Travel Disruption
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the disruption to rail travel from the recent cracks found in trains constructed by Hitachi Rail; and what measures they intend to take to ensure that services can resume without further disruption.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to say that, following the introduction of comprehensive daily testing regimes, LNER is able to run substantially all of its pre-planned timetable and GWR is operating an amended timetable, prioritising intercity routes to south Wales and the south-west.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
As a regular user of LNER, I appreciate that it has had a triple whammy this year, with Covid and the lockdown, the substantial improvements that Network Rail is undertaking at King’s Cross and now the recent disruption in services. Could my noble friend confirm that substantial repairs are expected to be needed, in the medium and long term, to the class 800 carriages? It is a matter of note that LNER operates only Azuma trains in this class. It could take until the end of 2022 to complete the repairs. Could my noble friend confirm whether Hitachi has the experience and capacity to undertake these repairs, in this country?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I reassure my noble friend that of course Hitachi has the experience to undertake these repairs. It comes with a good track record of safety and a high-quality engineering pedigree. I reassure my noble friend that LNER will do whatever it can to keep the timetable going, potentially by using slightly shorter trains to ensure that services continue, as much as they can.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, two weeks ago, all the trains were stopped for safety reasons, with serious reports of long cracks in aluminium. Now most have started again; presumably they are safe. Will the Minister commit to producing an urgent report on the cause of this, what has been done to put it right and how the longer-term safety of these trains will be assured?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I commit to the noble Lord that the ORR will produce a report on the safety lessons from this incident and on how passengers have been impacted.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, is it not a fact that 95% of GWR trains ran on Monday? In fact, the company expects to run an extremely high proportion of services. Would the Minister do something to stop all these prophets of doom, who seem to make public transport a kicking boy and put people off resuming their journeys?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I absolutely agree with the noble Lord. GWR is operating an amended timetable, and passengers need certainty nowadays, so that they can plan when to travel. GWR has every confidence that its amended timetable will run. Of its 93 class 800 trains, only 21 remain out of service. I therefore encourage passengers to travel and travel safety.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I entirely endorse what my noble friend just said about certainty. I am delighted to report that I had a good and punctual journey from Newark on Monday this week, but it is important to reinstate the service from Lincoln as comprehensively as possible. Most important is that, having got a timetable, we stick to it. Could my noble friend use her best endeavours in that regard?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am greatly relieved that my noble friend had a reasonable journey to London this week; I do not think I could have coped with another bad journey. I reassure him that LNER’s timetable will be in place until 7 June. As I am sure the noble Lord knows, this is to take into account the east coast upgrade works at King’s Cross.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is good to hear that things are getting back to normal. Has it taught us anything about how we ought to prepare for delays in the future? After all, these lines are incredibly important to business, as well as to ordinary people going about their daily lives. Secondly, have the Government made any assessment of the degree to which journey times are currently being affected?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am not aware that we have made an assessment of journey times but, given that the timetables are pretty much back to normal, albeit with fewer services, I expect that the journey times are probably about the same. With regard to the lessons that we have learned, I refer the noble Lord to my previous answer about the report that the ORR is preparing on this. I am sure that all noble Lords will look at that with interest.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, as part of the reintroduction of Hitachi 800 trains, it has been reported that the recovery plan developed with the Office of Rail and Road includes a forward repair plan to ensure their long-term safety. Can the Minister confirm how long this plan will take?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Unfortunately, I cannot confirm that at the moment, because the forward repair plan is still in development. It may help noble Lords to understand that the fix is straightforward; the problem is that it uses very high temperature welding, which means that there is a lot of disconnection and reconnection to be done. So the process is quite complex, but the fix is fairly straightforward. There may be ongoing limited disruption to passengers, but there will be certainty as to the amended services offered. We do not expect many short-notice cancellations.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, there are at least seven passenger train operating companies providing services on the east coast main line, and there is freight, which means that, on an intensively used line, any disruption or speed restriction, for example, has many knock-on effects. Does that not strengthen the case to increase the capacity of the east coast main line by way of improvements, both north and south of Newcastle?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
There may be a case for improving capacity and for looking at the way that trains are operated in this country. It will not be many more sleeps before the rail review is published.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister comment on whether the Government are willing to provide financial support to the affected train operators, which have already been badly hit by the coronavirus pandemic and may be struggling financially to provide alternative transport for passengers, while this disruption continues?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As my noble friend may be aware, the Government are essentially taking on all the revenues and costs for the train network as a whole, currently. Under the ERMA arrangements that we have with the train operating companies, the Government pay them a management fee for operating the services. However, compensation and how it works through the system is extremely important. There are two things to consider. The Government procured the trains for the intercity express programme with Hitachi, and the operating companies pay for them only if they are available to be out on the tracks that day. If any rectification is required due to an issue such as these cracks, Hitachi would have to pay to fix it.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask all Members to respect social distancing.
Trade and Official Controls (Transitional Arrangements for Prior Notifications) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
The Earl of Courtown
That the Regulations laid before the House on 25 and 31 March be approved.
Relevant documents: 52nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2019–21. Considered in Grand Committee on 18 May
Ministerial Code and Register of Ministers’ Interests
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, when I became a magistrate, I had never speeded or gone through a red light and I had kept to the Highway Code. Similarly, when I ran organisations, I ensured that I was beyond reproach in keeping to any codes or rules of good behaviour because it is about setting an example of what one expects of others. Does the Minister agree that Minsters, especially the Prime Minister, not only have to be, but be seen to be, squeaky clean in keeping to the rules and that as leaders of this country they should set the tone of what they expect of others? Will the Minister tell us when the register of Minister’s interests will be published?
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True)
My Lords, I would never offer any reproach to the noble Baroness, for whom I have the highest respect. The only thing I would reproach her with is joining the wrong party—she would be an adornment to any party.
I am tempted to say that I could not possibly add anything to what was said by my right honourable friend the Paymaster-General, but I will say that of course standards in public life are essential and I think that every Member of your Lordships’ House and, indeed, of the Government aspire to them. I feel privileged to be a member of a Government who are led by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister who in his short premiership has led the country through Brexit and the Covid crisis with enormous distinction. On the publication of the register of Ministers’ interests, which was the substantive question the noble Baroness asked, the noble Lord, Lord Geidt, answered on this point to PACAC, but I can inform the House that he hopes that it will be published very shortly—that is, by the end of the month.
Lord Tyler (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Government have been spending large sums of taxpayers’ money trying to stop the courts establishing whether the so-called Covid contracts were awarded incompetently or corruptly. I make no comment on the legal proceedings, but whatever the merits of the case, this attempt at a cover-up is clearly in breach of the Ministerial Code, the Nolan principles, to which it refers, and perhaps even of the Civil Service Code. I have a simple question: who authorised this expenditure? Was it Ministers or civil servants?
Lord True
My Lords, I think the noble Lord does not give due weight to some of the things that were being said by spokesmen for his party last year about the need to make every effort to get those vital items of PPE for our country. Some 11,000 million items of PPE have been distributed, and the concerns that have been expressed attach to only 0.5% of the goods.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend as disappointed as I am with the tone of the opposition questioning, not just today but particularly yesterday in the other place? Could my noble friend offer suggestions about why the electors of the proud constituency of Hartlepool refused to listen to these opposition denunciations? Is it because they accept that the Government are getting on with the serious and extraordinarily challenging task of saving lives? Or might it just be that they have trouble accepting these charges from a Labour Party whose MP in Hartlepool had to resign and who still has both its hands deep inside the pocket of its trade union paymasters?
Lord True
My Lords, we should always have glass houses in mind. The noble Baroness spoke in a measured tone and perhaps had in mind the very emphatic answer given to questions which were put yesterday exactly in the way to which my noble friend refers. It behoves all of us in politics to recognise that people in all parties strive to do their best, often in very difficult circumstances, to give public service. That is what unites us. The kind of political smear-mongering which we have seen demeans those who smear and politics as a whole. My noble friend is quite right to say that the people of Hartlepool gave it short shrift.
Baroness Prashar (CB) [V]
My Lords, the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Geidt, and some increase in his independence is welcome. Does the Minister agree that a further increase in his powers, as recommended by my noble friend Lord Evans, the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which are sensible and proportionate, would help to increase the credibility of the process and uphold the highest standards of propriety? Codes are important, but they need to be adhered to and breaches need to be properly investigated.
Lord True
My Lords, as the noble Baroness will know, the Prime Minister has written to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, in respect of some of those recommendations. The noble Lord, Lord Geidt, who is universally respected by this House, has just taken up his place. As the noble Baroness said, he has been given extra opportunities, and the right thing is to let him get on with the job and then enlighten us with what he learns and what he thinks.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I say to the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, that following the unprecedented veto by the Prime Minister of Sir Alex Allan’s report on the Home Secretary and Sir Alex’s resignation, the system was totally discredited. I follow up what the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and the Minister said: now that we once again have someone with impeccable credentials, a Member of this House, appointed by the Prime Minister, why do we not give him ultimate authority to decide on breaches and how to deal with them? Would that not restore confidence in the system?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the independent adviser has independence and authority. Indeed, the noble Lord opposite has underlined the authority that attaches to his record. In our constitution, the Prime Minister is responsible for hiring and firing Ministers. At the end of the day, that has been the case under Labour and Conservative Prime Ministers. The responsibility lies with the Prime Minister for hiring, firing and ultimately making judgments on the performance of Ministers.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, in an average year, 4,000 women are sent to prison for not paying their television licence of £159, with consequent disruption to them, their future lives and the lives of their children. Does the Minister think that not paying your television licence is a greater or lesser crime than those contained in the allegations against our Prime Minister, members of his Cabinet and many Ministers?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I try to make it a habit never to comment on the BBC, but I take note of what the noble Baroness says about television licences. She used a very important word in her question: “allegations”. Some are allegations; I believe some are smears. Most of them have been answered, and they are also being investigated. I suggest that we see what happens.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister referred to the remarks made by the Paymaster-General in the Commons yesterday. In the Government’s response to these questions today, we have again had this harping on about getting on with saving lives and striving to do their best. This is sheer obfuscation. That is not the issue. The question before us is: should Ministers comply with the Ministerial Code? Will the Minister take the opportunity to assure us that the fact there is a pandemic has no relevance to the absolute obligation on Ministers to comply with the code? The fact that we have a pandemic and that they are doing their best is irrelevant. Should they or should they not comply with the code?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I believe that all Ministers and all in public life should aspire to the highest standards, and I think that is the effort made. I do not agree that it is “harping on” to say that the Government are attending to the vital and urgent needs of the country in relation to Covid and recovery. A lecture of that kind comes ill from a party whose leader thinks his priority is to grab a roll of wallpaper in John Lewis. I wonder whether that has been declared.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have now been asked, so we will move to the next business.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am afraid the Minister is not available. Can we please adjourn the House for five minutes?
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will resume. I ask all Members to respect social distancing.
10-point Plan: Six Months On
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the Minister and his department for the energy Statement. This is the scatter-gun 10-point plan: six months on—the repeat. We have a climate emergency, the most pressing issue of our age, which the Conservatives call hyperbole. They cannot bring themselves to declare and sign up to the size of the challenge. The Statement says the Government are already delivering on it, yet in the next sentence says the plan is projected to create so many jobs and mobilise so much investment. These are targets without delivery, rhetoric without reality and wishful thinking. This is underlined by the point in the Statement that says the Government
“have enshrined the UK’s sixth carbon budget in law”.
However, this is yet to happen. The statutory instrument has yet to go through your Lordships’ House for approval. We will not oppose it, but merely point out that the Government have yet to meet the fourth and fifth carbon budgets, mentioned in the Statement, which refer to years sooner than those referred to in the sixth carbon budget.
The climate emergency is real. What these scattergun headlines miss is a comprehensive overall plan, with priorities and route maps along the way to meet in a systematic way the challenges we face. I congratulate the Government on starting to face the task since announcing the scattergun headline plan six months ago. The gestation is slowly evolving. The Government have at least published the energy White Paper, The North Sea Transition Deal, and have begun to recognise the further missing strategies as ingredients that need to be addressed and delivered if this plan is to be comprehensive. The response to the climate emergency is nowhere near being oven ready.
I thank the Minister for recognising in this Statement that we still need a heat and building strategy ahead of COP 26. We still need a transport decarbonisation plan. More than ever, we need a national retrofit and fuel poverty strategy with skills training, now that the green homes grant scheme has been abandoned and its funding withdrawn, rather than being allocated elsewhere. Where is the Treasury’s crucial net-zero review, due in the autumn last year, then promised this spring? Can the Minister give us another target? When will it see the light of day and set the overall size and context of the financial commitment needed? Germany has invested £38 billion in a green recovery, France £31 billion; and in the US President Biden has committed $1 trillion of his green infrastructure plan to green initiatives.
Will the Government commit to bringing forward the £30 billion green recovery fund Labour has called for? Do Government now accept that the UK is facing a climate emergency, and do they believe that this scattergun 10-point plan is really meeting the scale of that emergency? According to the climate change committee, the Government’s emissions target needs £50 billion of public and private investment every year by 2030, but the scattergun plan promises only £54 billion of public and private investment over the entire next 10 years put together. Has the Minister seen this analysis and how does he propose the Government make up the shortfall?
The Government’s emissions target will require huge changes, including the full decarbonisation of our power sector by 2035 and half of new cars sold by 2025 being electric. Can the Minister lay out in precise terms how the scattergun 10-point plan will achieve this? Will he commit to publishing his modelling? Given that petrol and diesel cars cannot be sold from 2030 onwards, what plans do the Government have to ensure that those on low to middle incomes are not priced out of electric car ownership?
The Government and the nation have a long way to go. Industry will play its part. As recently stated, much of the technology that will be needed to achieve net zero has yet to come into existence and be readily available. Hydrogen will be a key part of the energy mix and key to the decarbonisation of heat, as well as the solution to rail transport, especially for freight. There is a massive opportunity for Britain, with our fantastic scientists, our brilliant workforce and world-leading businesses. We need a Government with ambition and real commitment who get the task done, matching the ingenuity and inspiration of the British people. The Minister has shown great bravery in announcing his scattergun plan—the repeat—so soon. The Government are second to none at self-congratulation. Labour has put some clear red lines through much of the rhetoric and has a sharp message across the bottom: “Good but must do better”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for his comments. Obviously, I do not agree with many of them, but let me go through the points he raised in turn.
He talked about the fifth and sixth carbon budgets. The noble Lord needs to see this in the context of the UK’s record on decarbonisation. As he said, we have recently, on 21 April, laid the legislation to set the sixth carbon budget, covering 2033-2037. That will require a 78% reduction in emissions compared to 1990. In addition to the carbon budgets, as he is well aware, we have set the highly ambitious nationally determined contribution, through the UN process, to reduce emissions in 2030 by at least 68% compared to 1990 levels. This is the highest reduction target made by any advanced economy. We have shown through our actions that cutting emissions and growing the economy can go hand in hand. We achieved record clean growth between 1990 and 2019. Our economy has grown by 78%, and at the same time, we have managed to reduce emissions by 44%. That is a better record than any other G7 nation. I would have hoped that the noble Lord might at least have given us some credit for delivering that.
The noble Lord mentioned the green homes grant. Yes, we will not hide from the fact that it did run into some difficulties in terms of delivery, but we have made excellent progress across much of the investment. We have invested substantial sums in social housing, schools and hospitals, as well as in homes through the green homes grant, in particular supporting local authorities through the local authority delivery scheme. As he will be aware, the Chancellor also announced additional funding of £300 million going into the local authority delivery scheme, and we are working in partnership with many local authorities. I have met with many of them, and they are very grateful for this funding.
He asked about the Treasury net zero review. We have announced that the net zero report will be published this spring. It was delayed from autumn last year because of the pandemic. In the meantime—in order to keep his reading up to speed—Her Majesty’s Treasury published an interim report this autumn. This sets out our approach to the review and analysis which will form the final report. The initial timing of the review was delayed due to the Covid crisis. Given these circumstances, we took the decision to move publication to 2021, so if he will have a little bit more patience, the review will be there for him to read shortly. He also mentioned our investment in transport decarbonisation. Let me give him some of the figures. We have provided £1.3 billion to accelerate the rollout of charge points for electric vehicles, we have provided £582 million in plug-in vehicles grants, we have spent nearly £500 million on the automotive transformation fund and we spent considerable sums on improving public transport and government investment in low-carbon buses and trains. In March, we published England’s long-term national bus strategy, setting out a bold vision for bus services across the country.
He also asked about the transport decarbonisation plan. We have announced that the UK is embarking on a comprehensive transport plan—a bold and ambitious programme of co-ordinated action needed to meet the UK’s transport greenhouse gas emissions targets through to 2050, and that ensures that the transport sector plays its part. I think I have responded to most of his points.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the 20 minutes allocated to Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
I have given notice to the Minister that I wish to concentrate on the role of the national grid. On a number of occasions that I have come across, the national grid has been shown to be operating at margins that are very close. For example, and this is an instance that I am familiar with, if you want to run a couple more freight trains up the east coast main line, immediately the shout goes up, “The power supplies will not support this!” It is the case that throughout the economy a lot of people are going to have to spend a lot more money on electricity both to charge their cars and run their trains, particularly freight trains. I am something of a hydro-sceptic, but even if you want hydrogen you are going to have to spend electricity money on it.
When I looked today at National Grid’s shareholders, many of them could hardly be described as friends of Great Britain. The sorts of friends that you see in that list are perhaps not always the sort with which you wish to be associated. So my question for the Minister is: is Ofgem up to the job of making sure that National Grid is preparing plans so that the electricity is available to do many of the things to which he has drawn attention? This is possibly a national fault, but we run too close to the margin and then, when we want to do something a bit extra, find that we cannot.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord has drawn attention to some important questions. Of course, as we proceed with decarbonisation there will be an inevitable rise in electricity use and in the dispersion of electricity sources as we move away from fixed nodes to more dispersed forms of power generation. He is right to draw attention to the important role that Ofgem and the regulators, working in close partnership with the grid operators, will need to play to ensure that there is sufficient capacity, and I reassure him that we are doing exactly that. The Energy White Paper gave a commitment that the Government would consult on a strategic policy statement for Ofgem during the course of 2021, so we will absolutely ensure that it is up to the job—fit, battle-ready and taking part in important debates, negotiations and strategies to ensure that there is sufficient electricity capacity to meet the demand that he refers to.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I associate the Green group with the accurate description by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, of the plan as scattergun, and with many of his other concerns. I am sure the Minister will recall that point 5 of the plan refers to green public transport, cycling and walking, but when I look at the progress Statement I can find no mention of cycling and walking—or indeed of public transport, although the Minister mentioned it in response to the noble Lord, Lord Grandchester.
The Statement and the Minister have said a great deal about electric cars. Given the recently published Heinrich Böll Foundation European Mobility Atlas noting that on average commuters in London spend twice as long in congestion as those in Paris, in order to be the world-leading and attractive destination for businesses that the Government so often stress they want us to be, should they not be paying far more attention to walking and cycling across the nation, with their many Covid efforts at reducing congestion, improving health, fitness and well-being and supporting small local businesses?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am sorry that the noble Baroness does not give us credit for the considerable sums that we have spent on transport decarbonisation. I took some time to run through some of the figures in answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. In March last year we published part 1 of the transport decarbonisation plan. We are working to ensure that part 2 is as ambitious as possible, and we intend to publish it shortly. We have been clear that our intention was to get the plan fully published by spring 2021, but of course we have been delayed by wider events. The noble Baroness is right to draw attention to the importance of cycling and walking. They will form a key part of the Department for Transport’s decarbonisation plans.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, given that energy is devolved in Northern Ireland, along, to a lesser extent, with the environment, can the Minister confirm how the Government’s levelling-up agenda will ensure that the devolved nations, including Northern Ireland, keep up with the decarbonisation agenda, including the provision of more electric vehicle charging points and other elements of infrastructure based on the hydrogen economy?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness is right to draw attention to the work of the devolved Administrations. I can tell her that we work very closely with the DAs, at both ministerial and official levels, when developing policies and measures to reduce emissions and in tracking progress against our respective targets. Regular engagement takes place through the bi-monthly net-zero ministerial group, which has been developed in the context of the review of inter- governmental relations, and the supporting director-level net-zero nations board, as well as money policy-specific fora and frequent ad hoc contacts. Separately from that, there is a DA ministerial group chaired by COP president Alok Sharma, and the offshore transmission network review looks at policy and regulatory changes across England, Scotland and Wales.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I was surprised that there was no mention of SMRs or AMRs in the Statement. The original plan says that
“further investment in Small Modular Reactors and Advanced Modular Reactors”
will be made, and mentions sums of £125 million and £170 million respectively. Can the Minister update us on where we are on that regarding both the spend to date and whether the rather larger sums that were due to be brought in from the private sector have actually been forthcoming? Can he also confirm that phase 2 of the SMR proposals is still due by the end of 2021? If so, could he give us a bit more clarity about the dates?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord is right to draw attention to the importance of nuclear generation in the mix of fuels that we will need to take forward. I am happy to provide an update for him. I am delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord West, is fully in agreement with this.
The PM has confirmed the Government’s commitment to advancing large, small and advanced reactors as part of our 10-point plan for the green industrial revolution. We have announced £385 million in an advanced nuclear fund to invest further in the next generation of nuclear technology, subject of course to value for money and future spending rounds. The advanced nuclear fund announced as part of the 10-point plan includes funding of up to £215 million for small modular reactors and up to £170 million for advanced modular reactors. We are also investing up to an additional £40 million in developing the regulatory frameworks, including developing, funding and siting policies for small modular reactors, to which the noble Lord referred, and supporting UK supply chains in helping to bring these technologies to market.
The Energy White Paper confirmed that generic design assessment, the first stage of the UK’s nuclear regulatory process, will be opened up to SMR technologies this spring. We are pleased to confirm that the guidance for advanced nuclear technologies to enter GDA has been published on GOV.UK. GDA entry is an open and ongoing process, with a standing invitation for advanced nuclear companies to apply when they believe that they are ready to do so.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the Minister will be pleased to hear that I support the 10-point plan, which rightly does not see the strategy as a burden but as a way of building back the economy better, in a way that supports green jobs and creates a healthier Britain for our children by improving the air we breathe. As my contribution to the green agenda—I declare an interest—I have taken the significant step of investing in an all-electric car. Does the Minister agree that one of the big deterrents to taking this important step is the insufficiency of rapid-charging stations throughout the UK? Can he give your Lordships’ House an update on their rollout, and whether planning permissions and the timescales for implementation are being met? As an afterthought, if we are phasing out new gas boilers by 2025, why are they still being fitted into new builds?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I congratulate the noble Lord on his purchase of an electric car. I know he is from the north-east, too; I will not ask him what model it is but I hope it is one of the ones made in our region. He is right to draw attention to the need for charging points to be sufficient and widely accessible. We continue to engage with stakeholders to understand what support will be needed to enable the transition and minimise the impacts on businesses, workers and consumers across the UK. Prior to the 10-point plan, the Government have already committed £1.5 billion to support the early market and remove barriers to zero-emission vehicle ownership. Alongside the new phase- out dates, we have pledged a further £2.8 billion for a package of measures to support industry and consumers in making the switch to cleaner vehicles. That includes £582 million in funding for ZEV grants and £1.3 billion of infra- structure investment to accelerate the rollout of charging points, to which he referred.
With regard to the noble Lord’s point about gas boilers, when implemented in 2025 the future home standards will ensure that all new-build homes are zero-carbon ready. While building regulations themselves do not mandate or ban the use of any specific technologies, we intend to set the performance standard at a level which means new homes will not be built with fossil-fuel heating. In line with that ambition, the energy White Paper committed to consulting on whether it is appropriate to end gas grid connections to new-build homes from 2025 in favour of clean heat alternatives. The heat in buildings strategy reiterates our intention to consult on this. We will provide more detail on it in due course.
Queen’s Speech
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
“Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament”.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, it is a great honour to open this debate on Her Majesty’s gracious Speech on the important issues of foreign affairs and defence. I am delighted to be joined by my noble friend Lord Ahmad, who I know will employ his trademark expertise and erudition to good effect in what I have no doubt will be a well-informed, wide-ranging and robust debate. As indeed it should be, because, looking around the Chamber and on the screens, I see a number of distinguished former Foreign and Defence Ministers, not to mention an illustrious miscellany of noble Lords with acknowledged expertise in these areas. Together we will consider in detail the Government’s proposed approach to foreign affairs and defence, in which several themes will continually bubble to the surface: the need for resilience, the restlessness of our ambition, the conviction of our democratic values and the immense opportunities for the United Kingdom as we look to the future.
I want to begin by reminding noble Lords of the changing geopolitical context which forms the backdrop to this debate. We are living in a new era of systemic competition. The dangers are growing. We have seen Russia increasingly assertive, as its recent actions in Ukraine and the Black Sea remind us. We are witnessing a rising China, modernising its forces and assembling the largest naval fleet in the world. States such as North Korea and Iran are posing a growing threat and continuing to destabilise their regions, while the precarious situation in the Middle East, so distressingly visible right now, is giving many of us cause for concern. Meanwhile, the exponential advance of new technology is reshaping the nature of conflict and challenging us to establish new norms that accord with our values. All the while, the threat of global terror has not receded, and the danger of climate change grows.
Our response to this multiplicity, diversity and complexity of growing dangers was the integrated review of security, defence, foreign policy and development—the most comprehensive survey of our defence since the end of the Cold War. It sets out a clear plan for a stronger, more secure, prosperous and resilient United Kingdom, as we build back better from the Covid pandemic. It is a plan to sustain and deepen our strategic advantage through science and technology and to shape the open international order to create a world that leans more to democracies and the defence of our values, all the while building our security and resilience at home and abroad.
The Prime Minister has been clear that defence is at the heart of this programme. To be open and prosperous, we must be secure at home and active in the world. Defence is always the first duty of government. It is our nation’s insurance policy and our ultimate resilience. The Covid crisis renewed our appreciation of and admiration for what the brave and talented men and women of our Armed Forces do daily on our behalf. But our adversaries did not go to sleep through the pandemic—if anything, they redoubled their nefarious efforts. The challenge for us in the years ahead is to make sure we are fit to detect, deter and defeat threats to our people, our allies and our values at home and abroad.
That is why defence has received the most generous settlement in decades: a commitment to spend £188 billion on defence over the coming four years, an increase of £24 billion. Our Command Paper has taken that investment and used it to deliver what amounts to the biggest shift in defence for a generation. It will give us the technologically advanced, integrated and agile force that will underpin our nation’s hard and soft power in this new age of systemic competition. That new-age force is the necessary response to this new-age threat. To those familiar with the old ways, it may be disquieting, but our diplomacy is underwritten by the credibility of our forces—keen to avoid conflict through our global engagement, but always ready to fight to defend our people and our allies. The gracious Speech commits to pushing ahead with this modernisation. Inevitably, this has meant making some hard choices, but those decisions will give us formidable capabilities across sea, land, air, space and cyber.
At sea, our Royal Navy’s fleet is growing for the first time since the Cold War. We will have world-class general purpose frigates, air defence destroyers, hunter-killer submarines and a new multi-role ocean surveillance capability to safeguard our underwater cables in the North Atlantic. In the air, we will have updated Typhoons, brand new F35 Lightning stealth fighters, new unmanned systems capable of striking remotely, and massive investment in the next generation of fighter jets and swarming drones. On the ground, while our Army will be leaner, it will also be more integrated, more active, more lethal and more effective. It will be able to make the most of new Ajax vehicles, revamped attack helicopters, brand new Boxer armoured fighting vehicles, state-of-the-art air defence, long-range precision artillery and new electronic warfare capabilities.
However, none of these conventional capabilities can succeed in the modern battle without new investment in cyber, space and information manoeuvre. We are spending heavily in the National Cyber Force and establishing a new space command that will enhance our military surveillance and communication capabilities from space. We are not alone in seeking to modernise. Our adversaries, as well as our allies, are making rapid headway, so we are putting aside at least £6.6 billion for research and development to supercharge the development of next-generation disruptive capabilities, from directed energy weapons to swarming drones.
Having great capability is not enough. We are also changing our posture, combining permanent presence with high readiness to deliver a decisive impact. Two littoral response groups in the North Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific will, alongside our future commando force, allow us to respond to emerging crises in a matter of hours, not weeks. We will also have a very high readiness global response force, ready to dispatch our newly formed Army Ranger regiments into complex, high-threat environments.
Our people—our defence family—are going to be busier than ever, but we will make sure that they are properly looked after. No one in this place will disagree that they are our finest asset. That is why measures within the gracious Speech enshrine our Armed Forces covenant in law. The covenant has already made a huge difference to the lives of Armed Forces families: 79,000 service children in the United Kingdom now benefit from £24.5 million of additional pupil funding, and 22,200 service personnel have been helped on to the housing ladder by the Forces Help to Buy scheme.
However, we cannot rest on our laurels. Some members of our Armed Forces community are still suffering disadvantage in accessing public services. The gracious Speech will give our covenant legal force, placing a duty on public bodies responsible for the delivery of key functions in the areas of housing, education and healthcare to have due regard to the covenant principles. Separately, we want to make sure our fantastic veterans are given greater opportunities. We will introduce new measures to support veterans and reward employers of former service personnel by providing national insurance contribution relief for the employment of veterans.
Switch from home to away, we will continue to strengthen the international system as it feels the strain of deepening competition and revisionist pressures. We remain committed to European security and NATO remains a cornerstone of our defence. That is why we have ensured that we are the second biggest spender in NATO and a major contributor across all five domains, including the nuclear deterrent. As a leading light in the alliance, we also have a responsibility to support its reform. Measures in this gracious Speech will see us reinforcing our commitment to NATO transformation.
Meanwhile, we will continue pursuing constructive relationships and trade agreements with our neighbours in Europe based on mutual respect for sovereignty. We are realistic about the challenges we face, but optimistic about our future as an active European country with a global perspective—bringing countries together to solve the issues that matter most to our citizens to improve their lives.
As ever, no partnership is more valuable to us than our special relationship with the United States, as highlighted by the high-level calls made by our Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary to their American counterparts in recent weeks and the Defence Secretary’s meeting with US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. We are both committed to standing up for open democratic societies, we see eye to eye on climate change and we share many of the same security threats. It is only by working together overseas that we can keep our citizens safe at home.
Our Armed Forces are a global advertisement for British values, capabilities and leadership. They work alongside our gold standard, world-leading diplomatic and development network to shape the international order, build global resilience, sustain open societies and economies, and overcome global challenges. Whether in the many UN peacekeeping missions we are currently supporting or our application to become a formal dialogue partner with ASEAN, the best of UK defence is in tandem with the best of UK diplomacy—working hand in hand to protect global Britain on the world stage.
Last year the UK played a leading global role in the fightback against the pandemic. This year we will provide global leadership to international efforts to overcome the greatest challenges of our time. Next month we will host the G7 summit in Cornwall, in July we will co-host the global education summit with Kenya, and in November we will chair the UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, COP 26, in partnership with Italy. All the while, we will maintain and strengthen our networks and instruments of influence overseas.
Using our global diplomatic network and the British Council to forge alliances and uphold human rights and democracy across the world, we will take forward global efforts to get an additional 40 million girls into school, provide aid where it has greatest impact on reducing poverty and alleviating human suffering, and—importantly—return to our commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on development when the fiscal situation allows. All of this, combined with our ongoing training and development programmes around the world, maintains our position as a global soft power superpower.
Next week our magnificent HMS “Queen Elizabeth” carrier embarks on her maiden mission. As one of the two largest warships ever built for the Royal Navy, she will lead a British and allied task group on the UK’s most ambitious global deployment for two decades, visiting the Mediterranean, the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific. This deployment has attracted significant interest from other states and has a tangible convening power. I can think of no greater illustration of our global ambition; an ambition that runs like a golden thread through the gracious Speech; an ambition to strengthen our resilience, seize our opportunities and cement our role as a force for good in the world.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, as we begin a new parliamentary Session, I carry over from the last my greatest respect for our service personnel, veterans and their families. I thank them for all their hard work, especially during the pandemic.
The Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act, which concluded in this House just before Prorogation, clearly demonstrated that, first, this House has always worked together for the benefit of our personnel and veterans. We are lucky to have colleagues who have served so gallantly in the Armed Forces and bring a level of knowledge, experience and duty which makes our debates richer and legislation better.
Secondly, our commitment to our Armed Forces should align with our commitment to international law and human rights. Their work and reputation are only enhanced by the UK fulfilling its obligations and, by amending that Act to exclude genocide, torture, crimes against humanity and war crimes, Ministers recognised this. I thank the Ministers concerned for their engagement in achieving that.
Thirdly, there is much more to do to ensure that our personnel and their families are fully supported, especially in relation to repeat and shoddy investigations. Therefore, while some commitments in the Queen’s Speech are welcome, especially on relief for employers of veterans, the Government must ensure that their rhetoric matches reality. When it comes to defence, too often there is a wide gap between what Ministers say and what Ministers do.
The Queen’s Speech might have said the Government will
“provide our gallant Armed Services with the biggest spending increase in thirty years”,
but we know that the new defence budget is not all it seems. Ministers talk about the rise in capital funding, but not the real cut in defence revenue funding over the next four years, which means less money for forces’ recruitment, training, pay and families. It means a possible cut of 40% to the budget of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs. Worse still, over half of this year’s £16.4 billion defence equipment budget is revenue-based for equipment support and maintenance.
The Queen’s Speech briefing document might refer to a
“more agile, more lethal and more integrated”
Armed Forces, but it fails to mention that the Government’s plan involves fewer troops, fewer ships and fewer planes. The Army will be cut by 10,000 by 2025, at least two Type 23 frigates are gone, and we say goodbye to the Typhoon Tranche 1 aircraft and Hawk T1 training aircraft.
The Queen’s Speech briefing document also says that shipbuilding investment will be doubled but fails to demonstrate how the Government will prioritise British businesses. This is not only an investment in jobs, but in our communities and a more secure economy. Some 30,000 defence industry jobs have been lost since 2010, so we need greater protection of jobs in the defence sector, with a “British-built by default” approach to boost manufacturing in the UK supply chain. The new single framework created by the procurement Bill will include defence procurement, but can the Minister confirm whether this will improve procurement rules to promote prosperity in defence supply chain businesses throughout the UK’s towns, regions, and industries?
As for other legislation, the Armed Forces Bill, which has just finished Committee stage in the other place, is the main piece of defence-related legislation promised. The Bill presents a real opportunity to make meaningful improvements to the day-to-day lives of our Armed Forces personnel, veterans and families. We will work constructively and cross-party to get the best for our forces from this legislation.
The Government like to talk up their commitment to our service communities, but the Bill currently misses a crucial opportunity to deliver on the laudable promises made in the Armed Forces covenant. Service charities have pointed out that the narrow focus of the Bill on healthcare, housing and education could create a two-tier covenant that reduces provision in those areas outside the scope of the Bill. Does the Minister agree? The Bill also does little to tackle the issues of substandard housing head-on, with the Bill’s Select Committee chair stating that
“better accommodation is an area that still needs prioritisation within the Ministry of Defence.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/4/21; col. 1178.]
We welcome efforts to implement key recommendations of the Lyons review, particularly the creation of an independent service police complaints commissioner, but why have Ministers has not adopted the recommendation that civilian courts should have jurisdiction in matters of murder, rape and serious sexual offences committed in the UK?
I also remind the Minister about the outstanding issues concerning repeat and shoddy investigations. Only last week, it was announced that Major Robert Campbell is leading action against the MoD for around 30 ex-service personnel who argue that their lives have been ruined by vexatious claims and that the Government breached their duty of care to service personnel and veterans who faced investigation.
The Minister said that she looks forward to
“continuing these constructive discussions about the … duty of care”—[Official Report, 28/4/21; col. 2347.]
under the “more appropriate mechanism” of the Armed Forces Bill. We will hold her to that, as I am sure, will the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt.
We welcome the separate announcements in the Queen’s Speech briefing document to publish a defence accommodation strategy and a refreshed Armed Forces families strategy. However, we have been waiting for a new forces families strategy for months now, since the last one expired at the end of 2020. Will the Minister confirm when this will be published, along with a clear action plan, so that we can monitor progress? With its one-year anniversary in a few weeks, can the Minister also update the House on the implementation of the recommendations of the Selous review?
The Queen’s Speech reaffirms that the Government are pushing ahead with the integrated review and the defence Command Paper, but it does nothing to fill in the outstanding gaps. We are still waiting for an assessment of current or future capability, clarity on the strategic principles behind Britain’s defence policy and more information about how the Ministry of Defence should be structured to best provide national security.
The Queen’s Speech briefing document also said the Government will
“take risks to further strengthen the UK’s strategic technological advantage”.
Will the Minister explain what type of risks these include? Could they result in large amounts of taxpayers’ money being spent for no strategic gain—or collaboration with potentially dangerous third parties?
The need for the Government’s rhetoric to match reality is simple: our brave service men and women, their families and the security of the nation depend on it. Ministers must remember that in the months to come.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, as the Minister reminded us, defence is the first duty of government, and no one on these Benches will object to that argument. Defence is clearly crucial. Defence and foreign policy deserve a whole day of debate on the Queen’s Speech, which they have got. However, this set of policies is in some ways less controversial than some of the domestic legislation.
As the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, pointed out, on defence matters the Government, the Opposition and the Cross Benches act in a very collaborative way across the Chamber. We all benefit from the insights of the noble and gallant Lords and others who have been involved in the military. Like other noble Lords, I pay tribute to our Armed Forces; their role is crucial to the country, and we owe them all a huge debt of gratitude.
The world is in a very complex place, and, after a year of the pandemic, the global threats have not shrunk but merely changed and increased. The Minister talked about Russia, China, North Korea and Iran—and about Russia being in certain places, like Ukraine. There are also issues related to the Arctic. There is a whole set of global threats that we need to think about.
The gracious Speech raised very few issues in relation to defence itself. Listening to it, which I had the great privilege of doing from in the Chamber last week, I thought that there were very few words devoted to defence and a few more to the integrated review. However, clearly the Government have significant pieces of legislation that they wish to bring forward, some of which we have rehearsed already and some of which depend on the defence expenditure, which has already been mentioned.
There is a question about how many times the same increase in defence expenditure can be announced and rehearsed. We heard already, in late 2020, about the additional £24 billion. I do not think that anything new is contained in the gracious Speech and I am not expecting the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring forward any further funding. Although that increase was welcome, we need to bear in mind that it is a one- off additional expenditure or commitment. It might allow us to have new frigates, and there were certainly words in the briefing that will bring joy to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, suggesting that ship infrastructure spending—or investment—will double by the end of the Parliament. That is surely welcome.
It is also welcome that our troops will be agile and well supported by tanks, ships and aircraft—but it is also clear that, instead of a headline figure of 80,000 personnel, we are looking at 70,000. Is that something that the Government should countenance and that we should accept? Are our gallant Armed Forces really so resilient that a further cut of 12% is appropriate? If the world is such a dangerous place and if the Government continue to make commitments to deploy right across the globe, as “global Britain” suggests, we need to ensure that everyone is trained and fit to serve—and able to do what we require them to do. That is not simply about each individual; it is about teamwork and ensuring that people can be recruited, trained, deployed and can then have time to decompress. If we are cutting troop numbers, will that be feasible? What work have the Government put in to assessing the impact of the cuts to troop numbers on our service men and women?
A commitment to the Armed Forces covenant and enshrining it in law are welcome but not sufficient: we need to understand that the Government really will deliver on their duty of care to our service men and women and their families. As the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, pointed out, the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, put a lot of effort into the overseas operations Bill, in relation to an amendment on the duty of care. Arguably, that Bill was too narrow, but the Government should absolutely have a duty of care to our service men and women. What will they bring forward in the context of the Armed Forces Bill? Of course, although it is flagged in the Queen’s Speech debate, it is not a new piece of legislation—it is already in the House of Commons.
What will the Government do that is concrete? What will they deliver for our veterans? What plans do they have to look after service personnel and veterans who have PTSD? There are issues that, perhaps, were inadequately explored and talked about in the past. We need to deal with veterans’ mental health and ensure that no lives are lost through the suicide of people who have had PTSD.
These are crucial issues, and some clear answers, either now or in the context of the Armed Forces Bill, would be most welcome.
I can see people looking in my direction. I understand that I am speaking from the Front Bench and that I have 10 minutes.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
Thank you. In that case, I shall keep going.
Clearly, personnel are vital. Commitments to modernisation are welcome. The question then is, what are we doing with those commitments? HMS “Queen Elizabeth” is a vital asset. Sending it to the Gulf or to the Mediterranean is welcome. Sending it to the South China Sea might raise more questions. What assessment have the Government made of the benefits of sending the “Queen Elizabeth” carrier to the South China Sea? Is it going to assist with trade or a softer-power activity, or is this sabre-rattling? The former is desirable; the latter might raise some questions. It would be worth considering the Government’s intention behind these activities.
The same is true of the increase in defence expenditure. It is not clear from the briefings associated with the gracious Speech whether the Government intend to spend more on the nuclear deterrent, but clearly there is a commitment to increasing the number of warheads. How much of the increase in defence expenditure will go on new facilities and equipment? What percentage is likely to go on the deterrent? We do not suggest that the deterrent should be cut; whether it should be increased is another question.
I have focused predominantly on defence because the 10 or so of my noble friends participating today will talk about wider matters of foreign policy. I have a couple of brief questions about aid and support. It is good to hear that girls are being encouraged into education. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, has put a lot of effort into supporting this. The commitment to bringing back aid to 0.7% is welcome. Can the Minister tell us when the fiscal situation might allow this to happen? Predicting the economy is always very difficult but, at the time of the Brexit referendum, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to think that he could make predictions almost to the pounds, shillings and pence—I deliberately use old money because I think it would be what the Brexiteers would want to hear.
Finally, I turn to human rights. Her Majesty the Queen said that her Government
“will uphold human rights and democracy across the world”.
What efforts will they make to ensure that human rights are upheld in Hong Kong and in Xinjiang? We need this to happen. I hope that the sanctions and boycotting legislation will not prevent businesses putting forward a view that there are going to be places in which they do not wish to trade.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Government have rightly considered the preservation and strengthening of the rules-based international order to be in the vital national interest of the UK. This is the thrust of the recent integrated review. Britain outside the EU needs these rules even more than before, when we could rely on the solidarity of our European neighbours as of right.
This rules-based order has just had a pretty narrow squeak. Another four years of President Trump’s disruptive policies towards it could have inflicted irreparable damage. Although it is welcome that the US is back, the Biden Administration have no magic wand. Britain, too, and other like-minded states around the world will need to play their role in repairing the damage, filling the gaps and reforming international institutions. This is not so much about drawing up some new overall grand design as about acting collectively where the needs are greatest—on health, trade, climate change, and on reducing the risks of nuclear war and the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
On health, as the world gradually emerges from the worst of the Covid-19 pandemic, it will be important to put the Clark-Johnson Sirleaf review of the World Health Organization to good use to ensure that the WHO and its members get more prompt and guaranteed access to new outbreaks of disease. The WHO must be provided with a higher proportion of the resources it needs by assured, assessed—not just voluntary—contributions to bring about a much closer working relationship between the global organisations which deal respectively with human and animal diseases. Global schemes such as Gavi and COVAX must be in better working order and better resourced for when the next pandemic comes along, as it surely will. The provision of vaccines to poorer countries must be achieved more effectively when the need arises.
The World Trade Organization, under its new, impressive director-general, is also in need of urgent repair. Its dispute settlement procedures should be brought back into full working order. A waiver on the system of trade-related patents for Covid vaccines should be agreed promptly. Its decision-making processes need to be less ponderous and less easy to block—perhaps by making more use of plurilateral agreements in areas such as digital trade and trade in services. The balance between bilateral and multilateral trade agreements needs careful watching, avoiding too much emphasis on the former at the expense of the latter.
Climate change is a short, medium and long-term challenge which requires both national and collective responses, as the two are closely linked. Paris was an achievement, but it has not stopped the world slipping in the wrong direction. Glasgow will need to do better. It will need to reverse the rise in the use of fossil fuels —coal in particular. If we are to persuade big coal users, such as China and India, to do this, we cannot do the opposite ourselves. Many developing countries will need help to fulfil the commitments they enter into. This will require substantial amounts of public and private finance.
The postponed nuclear non-proliferation review conference is now scheduled for later this year. It comes after a period of steady erosion of arms control measures between the nuclear weapon states. If that erosion is to be reversed and dialogue about strategic stability between the five recognised weapon states is to get under way—as it needs to do—we cannot simply set off in the opposite direction, increasing our stockpile of warheads and refusing even to discuss concepts such as sole purpose and no first use. We cannot do that without it having negative consequences and inhibiting our ability to reduce the risks of nuclear war.
The Government’s decision to reduce our aid spending from 0.7% of our GNI, as laid down in law, to 0.5% is inconsistent with our taking effective action to address any of the four sectors of the rules-based international order to which I have referred. I urge the Minister in replying to this debate to give a clear commitment that the Government will return to full compliance with 0.7% in the fiscal year following the resumption of growth in our economy. This would do something to repair the damage already done and to restore our ability to play a positive role in strengthening the rules- based international order.
The Archbishop of Canterbury [V]
My Lords, it is a privilege to speak in this debate on the gracious Speech after the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, with his vast experience and knowledge. I have learned much from his speech and agree with what he said.
The integrated review, Global Britain in a Competitive Age, has much to welcome, including especially its thoughtfulness about the security implications of climate change, the strong commitment to freedom of religion and belief, and the commitment to restoring the 0.7%. However, to speak of security, defence, development and foreign policy without a developed section on peacebuilding and peacemaking, especially with competitors, is like speaking of the pandemic without mentioning vaccination.
The integrated review mentions security through improving conflict management in 10 or so places, but the Stabilisation Unit is not mentioned at all. How much of a priority is it, with its new name of the office for conflict stabilisation and mediation? Put another way, the integrated review presents a world in which we control events, as though that is normally the case in foreign policy. Last Thursday, Ascension Day, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark represented me at the installation of the Anglican Archbishop in Jerusalem, whose cathedral is in Sheikh Jarrah. He writes: “There is a growing recognition that lasting peace with justice can only be achieved if the rights of all the peoples of these lands are upheld and underlying grievances are addressed”—in other words, reconciliation. The situation in the Holy Lands illustrates perfectly how little we can anticipate events.
Now, more than ever, we need investment in new and visionary reconciliation capabilities and capacities which enable us to reduce the threat, and the human and financial costs, of war. Much has been said, rightly, by all speakers, about the extraordinary quality of our Armed Forces, but their best protection is peace. Noble and gallant Lords, and those serving today, know this especially well. In the beatitudes, Jesus says that peacemakers are blessed and will be called the children of God. The repeated biblical visions of swords into ploughshares are not only the call of God but a blessing to those who fight—and, I might comment, a blessing to the Treasury. To misquote a former Liverpool manager who taught his lads to get their retaliation in first, the best and by far the cheapest form of improved security comes from pre-emptive reconciliation—getting our reconciliation in first. Reconciliation usually does not mean agreement, but it does mean transforming violent conflict, or its possibility, into peaceful co-existence and competition.
Secondly, it is very welcome that the 0.7% target is reaffirmed. However, the reaffirmation—the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, commented on this—feels a bit like Augustine’s desire for chastity: welcome, but not yet. People who are poorest must be dealt with generously—first, for reasons of humanity from one of the richest and most powerful nations on earth; secondly, for our own long-term security; and, thirdly, so that the world can be a place of flourishing for our trade and development, here at home and for the poorest.
Thirdly, there has been much talk about the increase in the number of nuclear warheads. That is a very serious and concerning step, but not nearly as serious as the commitment, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, also referred, to increase deliberate ambiguity in the condition of the use of nuclear weapons and the absence of a stated commitment not to use them first. It is widely accepted that, even for those who argue the moral case for having these weapons—a very contested point indeed—clarity of purpose is essential to deterrence. Ambiguity increases the risk of disastrous miscalculation.
Finally, with all its many strengths, this review needs to integrate a vision of peace as an alternative to destructive conflict, which can only ever be a tragic last resort. The warnings in the review are not accompanied by an integrated moral basis for actions that, where at all possible, will reduce violent conflict and control it. Values are twinned in the text with words such as “democratic”, “rule of law”, “open societies”, “prosperity”, “soft power” and “culture”. There is even an aspiration to universal values, combined with a realistic appreciation of the conflict of values—values that are not anchored in any way in our history in the document and that are stated as manifest truth, without any moral foundations. It is in this moral argument of the document that peacemaking and peacebuilding are an afterthought. That seems a profound weakness of moral imagination, when we as a nation are able to do so much, in a document that argues so persuasively for our soft power and our values-based interest.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I speak for the first time and with humility. I start by thanking my two sponsors, the noble Lords, Lord Marland and Lord Kakkar, who kindly introduced me to the House, and all the staff who have been so helpful in explaining things. I also thank all the Members of the House who have made me feel so welcome. I really appreciate the level of expertise in this House.
To introduce myself, I was a councillor and, subsequently, council leader in Wandsworth, for 18 years. In 2011, I became the chief of staff and deputy mayor for planning and policy for the Mayor of London. In 2019, I became the Prime Minister’s chief strategic adviser, a post which I held until February of this year. I was privileged to be part of his team as first Brexit and then Covid became the dominating national and political issues. Outside politics, I am a businessman who has worked both in the UK and abroad for various engineering and property companies. I hope that my experience and accrued knowledge can be brought to the benefit of this House. I appreciate what a privilege it is to sit here.
I was working in government as an adviser when we began the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy, back in 2020. We could not foresee then the coronavirus pandemic and what became perhaps the greatest international crisis since the Second World War. On a personal level it has been a tragedy for so many people, and on a national level it has shown us that threats and tests can take many forms. As a nation, we have come through it and are now emerging with resilience and hope for better times ahead. That is a testament to the spirit of the British people and the heroic services of NHS staff.
Brexit means that we have now begun a new chapter. The United Kingdom now has the capacity to control and take our own decisions and to be open to the world, and the opportunity to forge new relationships. A trade and co-operation agreement with the EU allows us both to maintain close relationships with our European partners and to set our own global path economically and politically. I believe that, by 2030, the UK should be deeply engaged in the Indo-Pacific, active in Africa and nurturing thriving relationships in the Middle East, based on trade, green innovation and science and technology collaboration.
The Government must, of course, protect our people, our nation and our democracy. It is important that they have begun the biggest programme of investment in defence since the end of the Cold War. Defence policy needs to be modernised to utilise the new domains of cyber and space, and to equip our Armed Forces with cutting-edge technology. The UK needs capabilities such as the counterterrorism operations centre and the National Cyber Force. State threats are emerging, in the form of illicit finance, coercive economic measures, disinformation, cyberattacks, electoral interference and the use of weapons of mass destruction. Terrorist attacks remain real, whether Islamist inspired, Northern Ireland-related or driven by other motivations. Learning from the pandemic, the Government must keep their promise to bolster our national resilience with a new situation centre at the heart of Government. It is vital to improve our use of data and our ability to anticipate and respond to future crises.
I intend to hold this Government to account in meeting their pledge to establish the UK as a global services, digital and data hub. The Government have made tackling climate change and biodiversity loss their number one international priority. The UK was the first advanced economy to set a net-zero target of 2050. This target needs to be closely monitored by this House and others, to make sure that it is achieved. The ingenuity of the British people and the strength of our union, combined with our international partnerships, modernised Armed Forces and a new green agenda, should enable the UK to look forward with confidence as we shape the world of the future.
Lord Polak (Con)
I refer the House to my registered interest as president of Conservative Friends of Israel. I congratulate my noble friend on his thoughtful maiden speech. He has given his life to public service. As he said, he was first elected councillor of Wandsworth in 1976 and was a most effective and widely admired leader from 1992 to 2011, whereupon he became chief of staff and deputy mayor for policy. I recall that my noble friend and I worked together on a visit to Israel with the former Mayor of London—now doing a different job—and I saw at first-hand his eye for detail. I assisted him in the quite difficult task of trying to ensure that the mayor arrived and left each of the programmes on time—and of trying to keep him on message. We will all benefit in future from the expertise and wisdom of my noble friend, and I look forward to his many future contributions in this House.
I welcome the Government’s commitment in the gracious Speech to stopping public bodies imposing their own approach or views about international relations by preventing boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns against foreign countries. The Government made it clear that legislation is required to address concerns that such boycotts may legitimise anti-Semitism. I ask my noble friend the Minister, in this context, to go one step further. I am sure it has not gone unnoticed by my noble friend that in recent days, our close friends the United States, Canada and Australia have all pulled out of Durban IV. On 6 May, the Canadian Member of Parliament Anthony Housefather said that Ottawa has confirmed that it will avoid the gathering in South Africa known as Durban IV, which, he says,
“continues to be used to push anti-Israel sentiment and as a forum for anti-Semitism.”
I raised this issue in this Chamber on 22 April and asked if the Minister would confirm that the UK would not attend Durban IV. I did not receive an answer, so, in posing this question again, I will add only this: what is it that the FCDO knows better than its counterparts in the United States, Canada and Australia? Perhaps, I could put it a different way: what is it that those three countries understand that the FCDO does not?
I celebrated Shavuot on Monday and Tuesday of this week. For those two days, my family was peacefully unaware of the updated news, but let me tell noble Lords what I saw. I saw ramped-up security at the synagogue, with excellent co-operation between the Met Police and the community security trust. Many members of the Jewish community are rightly terrified. I thank the Home Secretary and the Communities Secretary for their comforting open letter to the Jewish community, published just today.
My noble friend Lord Udny-Lister rightly stated that the Government must protect our people, our nation and our democracy. Not only is my noble friend correct but, by inference, we are obligated to support our democratic allies in exactly the same way, and they must protect their people, their nation and their democracy.
The shocking and disturbing scenes on the streets of north-west London this weekend absolutely do not represent the views of the vast majority of Muslims living in the UK; and I would argue that the murderous acts of Hamas, indiscriminately firing deadly rockets at civilian areas in Israel, do not represent the views—and certainly not the interests—of the majority of the Palestinian people. My noble friend Lord Shinkwin put it succinctly this morning in a letter to the Telegraph— I quote him because I could not possibly put it any better:
“The repercussions for civilians caught up in the current conflict on both sides are tragic, but we should never lose sight of what is at stake. Israel’s right to exist is under sustained and insidious attack from the terrorist Hamas regime and its puppetmaster, Iran. Hamas’s cynicism knows no bounds. It thinks nothing of diverting international aid from hospitals to bunkers, building rocket factories in civilian areas, and using children as human shields, all in pursuit of its overriding goal: the destruction of the Jewish state.”
I pay tribute to my noble friend for his analysis and for sharing it in public.
In conclusion, does the Minister agree that we should increase pressure on Iran to stop supplying rockets and know-how to Hamas? Does he also agree with my friend Dore Gold, who said:
“The mistake of the 2015 nuclear deal must not be repeated, with billions of dollars going to Iran, fuelling the next wave of terrorism—including the terror of Hamas. Not only is the security of Israel at stake but the security of the wider Western alliance”?
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, on his maiden speech and welcome him to the House.
After every Queen’s Speech, I bemoan the lack of reference to defence, but this time, there is a whole paragraph. It refers to
“the biggest spending increase in thirty years.”
Unsurprisingly, it does not reflect that the cuts in 2010 were also the biggest for 30 years, resulting in a 30% reduction in our military capability since that date. Defence remains under huge financial pressure. However, one could only applaud the reference in the Speech to
“reinforcing the United Kingdom’s commitment to NATO.”
President Macron has given some very mixed messages about support for NATO, but despite that, it is the bedrock of European security in the face of Russian adventurism.
I am also delighted that the Government have been clear about the need to increase the size of the Royal Navy; the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newham, referred to my pleasure at that. They appear to be taking shipbuilding seriously. There is no doubt that the Royal Navy is too small and in desperate need of frigates. The ageing Type 23s, our present frigate force, are paying off year on year. The Type 31 programme for new frigates is moving ahead, although the delivery dates of 2027 and beyond will put further pressure on overall escort numbers. The Type 26 programme, our very smart frigate, is too slow, and BAE Systems needs to sharpen up its act. The three ships ordered and being built are taking for ever—the first not in service until 2027. The remaining five are still not ordered, with consequent penalties to SMEs and supply chains. The much-vaunted Type 32 programme is still not even on the drawing board. I ask the Minister: will frigate numbers drop below 10 this decade?
More broadly on the shipbuilding front, hopefully, the three fleet solid support ships will be ordered from United Kingdom yards shortly, as well as an ocean research ship and, possibly, a jack-of-all-trades royal yacht. I know how that excites people. The UK shipbuilding enterprise requires a strong order book to be able to invest for the long term and improve its competitiveness. The best way to achieve this is for the Government to take a more strategic approach to procurement and facilitate access to finance.
Today, I wish to highlight two things. First, the events in the waters surrounding Jersey throw into stark relief the dearth of Royal Navy ships patrolling, monitoring and protecting the United Kingdom’s exclusive economic zone and territorial seas. The overseas patrol squadron responsible for this consists of four minor war vessels, which assist the Marine Management Organisation in fishery protection. Two were monitoring the situation off Jersey, hence the remaining 300,000 square miles of exclusive economic zone and our territorial seas had two small RN ships for coverage. As well as fisheries duties, these ships have a responsibility for the security of oil platforms and wind farms, plus all assets in the seas around the United Kingdom, as well as a duty to assist other government agencies in protecting our coastline from illegal immigrants, terrorists, drug runners, people smugglers and organised crime. The UK coastline is 11,000 miles long. The issue of adequate monitoring and protection of this space and our coastline needs urgent attention and requires cross-departmental agreements, plus an overall increase in the number of small ships for the Navy, and other departmental assets allocated. Is such a review planned?
Regarding the sea areas around our dependencies—covering just under 3 million square miles—the Government are to be congratulated on establishing the largest marine diversity protection areas in the world. But with no vessels to monitor them, they are meaningless.
Lastly, I have a plea for a forgotten jewel in our nation’s crown: BBC Monitoring. Working in conjunction with the World Service, this organisation provides invaluable data, enabling the Government to enhance our nation’s soft power and hence its global influence. It provides detailed information on terrorist trends, jihadist or right-wing, and recently has done some incredible work on disinformation and the impact of Covid worldwide, allowing our Government to take certain actions. It also helps our hard power, with insightful reports on hotspots and trends. Does the Minister agree that the contribution of BBC Monitoring and the World Service to UK and global security is vital, and can she confirm that it will be a factor when making decisions about the future funding level of the licence fee at the next spending review?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I counted three references to values in the Minister’s speech. Former Secretary of State John Kerry said that
“values spoken without actions taken are merely slogans.”
We are told that this Queen’s Speech implements the Conservative Party manifesto. In the middle of page 53 of that manifesto, in very large lettering, is the heading “Promote our values”, under which it says that
“we will end preventable deaths of mothers, new-born babies and children… by 2030… We will stand up for the right of every girl in the world to have 12 years of quality education”,
and unequivocally
“will proudly maintain our commitment to spend 0.7% of GNI on development”.
This is of course a legal requirement, not a discretionary one, but the equivocation since the decision in the last Session to unlawfully break this requirement, and the reality of what the cuts in this Session mean, is becoming stark. Just today, the International Development Committee in the House of Commons published a Statement saying:
“MPs condemn cuts to girls’ education”
in poor countries, and of hiding other reductions. MPs questioned why aid programmes aimed at boosting girls’ education in low-income countries appear to have been slashed when they were described by the Government as one of their top priorities. The chair of the committee said that it was ridiculous that the Government trumpet their commitment to girls’ education but then appear to cut the programmes in this area by 40%, which we know only because of the valiant questioning by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, who is pursuing this issue.
What of the other values in the manifesto? Support for preventable deaths of mothers and newborn babies has been slashed, especially in Yemen. Quite astonishingly and shamefully, it took a civil servant to admit that no humanitarian impact assessment had been carried out before that aid support was slashed. On malaria, support was also slashed. One of the richest countries on earth, at the height of a global health and humanitarian crisis, the likes of which we have not seen in a generation, decides that its global response is to cut global support by a third, and to do this, breaks domestic law. I say again: values.
When the fiscal situation allows, is this a value or a slogan? These fiscal situations do not exist. If they did, the Government would have said what they were over the last six months to questions in this House and in the Commons. The Minister should have said that they will return to the legal commitment when the political situation allows, when the Government believe that these cuts are no longer popular, because clearly, the Government believe that, unique across the comprehensive spending review, the level of cuts in aid is popular. No other areas are being cut, so let us have a little honesty from the Government on what the fiscal situation allows.
It goes beyond this, of course, because the Minister referred to global leadership. As one of the seven richest nations on earth convenes the G7 in a few weeks’ time, will we repeat what we said on the two previous occasions when the UK convened the G8 and the G7? I remind the House of what the communique drafted by the British Government said at Gleneagles in 2005:
“G8 members from the European Union commit to a collective foreign aid target of 0.56% of GDP by 2010, and 0.7% by 2015.”
At Lough Erne in 2013, David Cameron told the other leaders that the UK had met its target and recommended that they do so also.
In 2021, we have breached our law; we are no longer meeting the commitment and we will have stopped a record for at least two decades of promoting the 0.7% to the other richest countries in the world. This is a retreat of global leadership, not a demonstration of it.
Let us not hear more of values when the actions speak against them. We are no longer in this area a leader in the world. The Government have abdicated that responsibility, and the tragic situation is that no other G7 country will meet that gap. Therefore, the consequence of the breaking of the law and the retreat of these values is that more mothers and children will die, we will have more people suffering from malaria, and global goals will not be met in a manner which we believe they should be.
Baroness Cox (CB) [V]
My Lords, Her Majesty’s gracious Speech affirmed the United Kingdom’s commitment to uphold human rights and to alleviate human suffering across the world. I wish to raise two issues.
First, I record my appreciation of the Government’s response to the military coup in Myanmar. Last Saturday, Dr Sasa, spokesperson for the newly formed national unity Government, contacted us urgently to report a new large-scale attack by the military against civilians in Mindat, in Chin State. Homes were destroyed by tanks and helicopters. Anyone who tried to help the wounded was arrested and screams of torture-inflicted pain could be heard from captured civilians. Many of those arrested were used as human shields.
I have visited Mindat. The civilians are a peace-loving community with very limited resources to defend themselves. Given that their plight is expected to worsen in the coming days, I hope that the Minister agrees that measures by Her Majesty’s Government will include urgent help with protection and provision of cross-border aid, engaging directly with local leaders and NGOs, because aid delivered through Yangon does not reach vulnerable people.
I turn briefly to Armenia, and the historically Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh, where civilians recently suffered large-scale military offensives by Azerbaijan, aided by Turkey, with thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of civilians driven from their homes. I visited Karabakh during that war and witnessed the perpetration of war crimes by Azerbaijan, including the deliberate bombing of civilian targets such as the maternity hospital in Stepanakert. However, despite a ceasefire in November, there are at least four urgent concerns, which Her Majesty’s Government, unlike the Governments of France, the United States and Canada, have failed adequately to address.
The first is the refusal by Azerbaijan to release Armenian prisoners of war and civilian detainees who are subject to killings—including beheadings—torture and indefinite imprisonment. During a meeting with victims’ families in November, I was told that Azeri perpetrators sometimes send pictures of the torture and slaughter of Armenian soldiers from their phones to their families. I have sat with some of these families, dreading what might come through on their phones.
Secondly, there are serious concerns over the fate of hundreds of Armenian Christian monuments and cultural heritage sites, now under Azerbaijan’s control. There has already been footage of the jubilant destruction of a church by Azeri soldiers. Between 1997 and 2006, an estimated 28,000 Christian monuments were destroyed by Azerbaijan in the previously Armenian land of Nakhchivan.
Thirdly, anti-Armenian rhetoric, or Armenophobia, by the Azeri president, other officials, and across social media, has escalated, naming Armenians as pigs, dogs and brainless. This hatred has generated the creation of the Spoils of War Park in Baku; it displays mocking, humiliating mannequins of Armenian soldiers, which children are encouraged to hit, and a corridor lined with the helmets of dead Armenian soldiers.
Fourthly, recently and very disturbingly, Azerbaijani forces have advanced into new positions along the Armenia–Azerbaijan border, away from the conflict zone, and occupied the sovereign territory of Armenia itself. This included, on 12 May, armed units advancing three to four kilometres into the Armenian province of Syunik.
The atrocities perpetrated by Azerbaijan in Nagorno-Karabakh during the recent war have been so serious that Genocide Watch has defined them as genocide. They have largely been unrecognised by the UK, with no appropriate response. That is very dangerous because, as has been well said, every genocide which is not condemned is an encouragement to the perpetrator to continue genocidal policies with impunity.
The International Association of Genocide Scholars raised similar urgent concerns in October, warning that
“genocide of the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, and perhaps even Armenia, is a very real possibility.”
Yet despite these warnings Her Majesty’s Government have chosen not to intervene to protect civilians. They continue to refuse to hold Turkey and Azerbaijan to account for their actions, despite clear evidence of past, recent and ongoing atrocities, choosing instead to define the crisis as a “problem on both sides”, in which Armenia is portrayed as equally guilty as Azerbaijan and Turkey. While war often involves crimes against humanity, and Armenia may have some culpability, there is absolutely no equivalence with the atrocities and war crimes perpetrated by Azerbaijan.
As the Armenian Foreign Minister said to us on a recent visit to Armenia: “Autocratic states have assessed how far they can get away with things. They have concluded that the ‘democratic world’ is somewhere else. They have assessed the democratic world and they will therefore continue this policy, as they have learnt from this.” There is therefore an urgent need to fulfil the commitment in Her Majesty’s gracious Speech to uphold human rights and to alleviate human suffering for the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my declarations in the register of interests, specifically a new one: I have been appointed the Prime Minister’s special envoy on LGBT rights and I am chair of the Global Equality Caucus, an alliance of parliamentarians around the world committed to promote LGBT equality. I join in the congratulation for my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister on his excellent maiden speech and very much look forward to his further contributions and to serving with him in this House.
I welcome the Queen’s Speech, and specifically the commitment to uphold human rights and democracy across the world. I draw attention to a particular aspect of human rights that has not yet been mentioned, but which I believe is very important. Monday was International Day against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia, and it was very good to see the rainbow flag flying above the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, as it did above our missions around the world—a policy of symbolism that was restored by the Prime Minister when he became Foreign Secretary. The truth is that, in respect of LGBT rights, we see a tale of two worlds: one world in which countries such as our own have made immense progress over the course of the last few years to secure the rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual people; but another world where countries are not only failing to make progress but, in some cases, going backwards. Some 70 countries still criminalise same-sex intimacy and 11 retain the death penalty. We have been forced to take sanctions, for instance, in respect of terrible human rights abuses in Chechnya.
I believe the UK can use its immense soft power to be, in my noble friend the Minister’s words, a force for good. That will require tremendous leadership on the part of the Government, of all of us individually and of our partners. First, we can and must continue to show our own leadership in this area and finish business that is not yet complete; so I welcome the proposal to ban the appalling practice of conversion therapy and look forward to those measures being brought forward. It is a cruel practice which has no place in a modern society, and the leadership that we show here, in common with a number of other countries, will ensure that it can be banned across the world.
We have, of course, our bilateral diplomatic engagement and the support we can give on the ground, both publicly and privately, through our missions. We can operate multilaterally, through the UN, the Commonwealth, the European Focal Points Network, and the Equal Rights Coalition of which the UK was a co-founder and of which we are now co-chair with Argentina. It is partly as a result of that that next year we will be holding, in the UK, a global LGBT conference. It will, in fact, be the biggest event of its kind ever held in the world, bringing together activists, experts, Ministers and parliamentarians from all over the world to discuss how we can tackle violence, secure decriminalisation and ensure equal access to services. Safe To Be Me will be a very important event and one that I hope parliamentarians in this country will engage with, as we hope they will across the world. I look forward to continuing to work with the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT+ Rights, of which the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, are such energetic members.
Why does all this matter, I hear some say, when the world is suffering from Covid and we face the economic costs? It matters because around the world, people continue to live in fear, some in fear of their lives. It matters because LGBT rights are human rights, and those rights should be universal because everybody is entitled to live in equal human dignity; to be respected for who they are, regardless of their sexuality or gender identity; to rise by their own talents. If we fail to recognise and allow those talents to be expressed, then terrible economic and social cost is exacted. These values may not be uniquely British, but they are surely fundamental to our understanding of what it means to live in this country. That is why it is so important that the Government are showing such commitment and leadership in this agenda, and why I will do everything I can to support it.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, and to agree with every word he said.
In these five days of debate on the Queen’s Speech we can talk about almost anything, but we are allowed to speak only once. I would have liked to have spoken last Thursday, in the debate on the constitution, to argue the case for a new, improved United Kingdom constitution based on radical federalism—I would have had some support from my left here—but instead I have opted to speak today in the debate on foreign affairs and defence. Even then, I am still tempted to speak about the European Affairs Committee, of which I am now a member, and which takes on a different but equally important role to that of the European Union Committee following the disaster that is Brexit. I will not go further on that. There are so many other issues I could cover, such as the despicable cut in development assistance, which is already devastating some key aid programmes, but I agree with every word of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and I could not say it as eloquently. Then we have the growing threat from Russia, and I am particularly concerned about the challenge of China, and other Members have today spoken about that.
However, I have decided to concentrate my remarks on just one important issue, in the hope that it might help to make a difference, and that is the situation in Belarus and, in particular, the plight of political prisoners illegally detained there by the Lukashenko regime. Belarus is the only European country not eligible for membership of the Council of Europe, because of its reactionary policies, including the retention of capital punishment. The 26-year reign of Alexander Lukashenko reminds me of the legacy of the autocracy and repression I saw in the old Soviet Union. Its failure to move towards democracy was underlined recently by two reports we had at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: one was an excellent report on reform of the electoral system by our own noble Lord, Lord Blencathra; and the other was by Ms Alexandra Louis on the many human rights violations in Belarus. Arising from these reports, PACE called on member states to make use of the universal jurisdiction of our courts here for acts of torture and to pass Magnitsky laws to impose targeted sanctions on these perpetrators of serious human rights violations. I hope the Minister in his reply might say something positive on that.
Even more urgently, I want to concentrate on the awful plight of the hundreds of political prisoners held illegally in Belarus. We can only imagine the feeling of injustice and despair, coupled with the sense of helplessness and hopelessness that arises from being detained illegally and held in solitary confinement in a jail in such a situation. Thankfully, around Britain and Europe there are dedicated people who, working with Libereco and Viasna, have arranged for MPs and Peers, along with Members of other parliaments in Europe, to “adopt” a prisoner to bring them some hope and let them know they are not forgotten.
I am pleased that my noble friends Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, Lady Crawley, Lady Smith of Basildon and Lady Massey, the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Balfe, and Tony Lloyd, John Howell and Tonia Antoniazzi from the other place have joined me in adopting a prisoner. I hope that other Members will think of joining us.
My adoptee is Stepan Lapitov, an arborist, who followed his father and grandfather in this profession. He was arrested on a trumped-up charge because one of the chemicals he uses regularly in his work could also be used in the manufacture of explosives. My noble friend Lord Winston will understand how that can happen.
As a result, Stepan is detained without trial in isolation, unable to continue his important work and not knowing what fate awaits him. He and the other political prisoners are under great psychological pressure and treated as common criminals just because they are not seen as loyal supporters of the regime. Any contact that they are able to have with the outside world is therefore a comfort, knowing they are not forgotten and that members of parliament around Europe are not just seeking their release but are keeping in regular touch with them.
I have written twice now to Stepan and get reports of his situation, as do all those who have joined the adoption scheme. I have let him know that I have raised his case in Strasbourg and am raising it today in the British Parliament. He knows that I am speaking today.
Of course, we can and should intensify our campaign in support of Svetlana Tikhanovskaya and her legitimate demand for democratic reform in Belarus, but it is equally important to remember each individual who is suffering under the dictatorial regime and who yearns for the advent of democracy in what remains a redoubt of autocracy in Europe. I hope that the Minister, in his reply, will add that the fate of each of them is also in the thoughts of Her Majesty’s Government.
Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]
My Lords, we already knew that the integrated review reflected a tilt away from Europe, regrettably making little reference to the potential for a strong security relationship with the European Union. But the Queen’s Speech was even worse in making no reference to Europe at all. There was mention only of the Gulf, Africa and the Indo-Pacific. The EU was the unacknowledged elephant in the room and merited only a sentence or two in the Minister’s introduction.
Perhaps that explains why the Government’s European policy is in such a poor state, with hostility being generated and no strategy for easement and improvement. We have unilateral moves on the Northern Ireland protocol predictably attracting legal proceedings from Brussels, and government mendacity over the protocol contributing to the difficulties in Northern Ireland. We have a huge burden of red tape on British traders and consumers, such that imports and exports with the EU are down 15%—no mere teething problems. Fish and seafood exports are practically impossible. Musicians and actors have been rendered unable to tour, although our creative industries are worth billions to our economy. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, finally admitted yesterday that this is because of UK rejection of an EU offer. Seasonal workers are, absurdly, being brought in from Belarus and Russia because EU workers have been blocked. A permanent data adequacy arrangement is at risk from the Government’s bulk access practices, onward transfers and international agreements. Finally, the treatment of EU citizens is raising serous alarm in the UK’s independent monitoring authority and among EU leaders.
The Government are giving spurious excuses for why they will not accept the EU offer of a veterinary agreement to resolve many of the issues over food safety and animal health measures under the Northern Ireland protocol. The justified suspicion is, of course, that the Government are not only obsessed with their Brexit sovereignty thesis but want to allow in food from Australia—over which a furious row is going on in Cabinet—and from the US, which would breach EU-UK food safety and animal welfare rules.
EU citizens resident here fear legal limbo or falling foul of a new Windrush scandal. They may be faced with loss of employment, homes, entitlement to NHS treatment and more, even the risk of detention and removal from the UK, if they do not have the required immigration status to remain beyond 1 July. But 370,000 submitted applications have not been concluded. A large number of people will submit an application before the 30 June deadline. Will the Minister now answer the question put by the3million group: how will those people prove their right to work, rent or access benefits in the UK after 1 July if a decision has not been made on their case?
I hope that our European Affairs Committee in its welcome short inquiry into citizens’ rights issues, covering both EU and UK nationals, will also get an explanation for the shameful imposition of the full hostile environment treatment on newly visiting EU citizens. Until a welcome change of heart in the Home Office, some were being immediately locked up and expelled if suspected of wanting to work without a visa, even though they are not in breach of the law unless and until they do. This is not only shabby behaviour in itself but risks rebounding on our own nationals in the EU and EEA.
On Hong Kong, Britain’s role means it has a unique responsibility to protect the rights and freedoms of people there. The Magnitsky-style sanctions regime introduced last year gave new powers to target those who have been involved in some of the gravest human rights abuses around the world. I understand that, so far, no Chinese or Hong Kong officials with personal links and assets in the UK have been targeted under this regime, despite clear human rights violations. Will the Minister tell me the Government’s plans on this point?
Lastly, I want to raise the Alliance for Middle East Peace, brought into even greater relevance by the present renewed conflict between Israel and Hamas and the appalling intercommunal violence within Israel. This group, founded in the United States some years ago, consists of over 100 NGOs working to foster reconciliation. The plan, supported by legislation in Congress, is to set up a sizeable international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace, inspired by our own successful International Fund for Ireland. It would bring together public and private donors to focus on supporting joint initiatives and co-operation between Israelis and Palestinians, and between Arabs and Jews in Israel and the wider region, encompassing both business and economic development and a range of civil society projects.
The Britain-Israel all-party group chaired by Bob Blackman MP and the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, wrote to the Foreign Secretary earlier this month, in a letter I was pleased to co-sign, urging UK support for this fund and that the opportunity for a place on the board should be taken up. No reply has been received, but current events suggest that now is absolutely the right time to strengthen the UK’s support for coexistence. In answer to debates in the other place, Ministers confirmed that participation was under consideration. I hope the Minister can tell me today that a positive decision is in the pipeline.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, on his maiden speech. In declaring various non-financial interests in the register, I too invite the Government to enlarge on the statement in the gracious Speech that they will
“uphold human rights and democracy across the world.”
Dominic Raab, the Foreign Secretary, recently appeared before the International Relations and Defence Select Committee, where I urged him to lead the reform of the United Nations Security Council veto powers, to remove the right of veto where it is used to block the referral of atrocity crimes and genocide to the International Criminal Court—a veto often used by Russia and China.
Last month, the House of Commons resolved that crimes against the 1 million Uighur Muslims enslaved in Xinjiang constitute a genocide, but no action is taken in the Security Council because the Chinese Communist Party—CCP—vetoes, threatens, intimidates or sanctions all those who try to hold it to account.
On North Korea, a 2014 UN commission of inquiry described the country as “without parallel” and called for crimes against humanity to be referred to the Security Council and on to the ICC. Seven years later, the CCP’s veto ensures that this does not happen.
In Burma, under the illegal regime, authors of atrocity crimes against Rohingya, Kachin and other minorities strut with impunity, aided and abetted by their authoritarian friends in Beijing.
Take Tigray, described as “one vast crime scene”, with women and girls—some as young as eight—systematically raped. One woman was told by her violator, “A Tigrayan womb should never give birth”. Nearly 800 Tigrayans were murdered at Axum. Starvation is being used as a weapon of war. Last week, the Guardian reported that hyenas had been eating the corpses. Along with Russia, the CCP has thwarted attempts in the Security Council to hold the perpetrators to account.
Next month, 19 June will mark the United Nations International Day for the Elimination of Sexual Violence in Conflict. On that day, the United Kingdom, with its significant record on the prevention of sexual violence in conflict, should lay a resolution before the Security Council demanding an end to this new genocide and these terrible atrocity crimes in Tigray.
However, this is not just about the Security Council or the veto. In taking control of the human rights agenda, China, Russia, Pakistan and Cuba are now all members of the United Nations Human Rights Council, making the watchdog and the burglar interchangeable. As it subverts international institutions, the CCP uses debt bondage through its $760 billion belt and road initiative, which encompasses some 71 countries, to turn developing nations into vassal states. Last week, it warned such countries not to attend a United Nations meeting that the United Kingdom co-hosted and which highlighted crimes against the Uighurs.
Compliance with CCP diktats requires silence on or support for human rights violations in Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Tibet, as well as support for the CCP’s threats against Taiwan and its use of sanctions—including threats of missile strikes—against Australia after that country called for an independent investigation into the origins of Covid-19. Last week, the CCP hammered another nail into Hong Kong’s place as a global financial centre, based on the rule of law, by freezing £500 million of the assets of Jimmy Lai, a British citizen and, through his independent media, a champion of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Similarly, the CCP’s violation of Article 18—on freedom of religion or belief—is evident in the treatment and imprisonment of Muslim Uighurs, Tibetan Buddhists, Christians and Falun Gong. Or take Articles 4 and 23 of the UDHR, which prohibit slavery and protect workers’ rights.
On 15 June, I will introduce a Private Member’s Bill to strengthen the provisions in the Modern Slavery Act on supply chains. The UK must do more to challenge the use of slave labour, but must also be alive to the internal dangers inherent in the CCP’s ownership of £135 billion of UK assets. Happily, although the world has been sleepwalking, we now see some countries awakening. For instance, in response to attempts to silence MEPs by sanctioning them, the European Parliament will vote tomorrow on the freezing of the mammoth investment agreement with China.
In evaluating the threat to human rights posed by the CCP, George Soros has described Xi Jinping as the most dangerous enemy that open societies face. To counter this, we must build stronger alliances with rising Asian nations that share the aspiration of the gracious Speech to promote human rights across the world.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, the priority of the gracious Speech is to deliver a national recovery from the pandemic that makes the United Kingdom stronger, healthier and more prosperous than before. If nothing else, this last year has proved that our strength, health and prosperity are inextricably interconnected with that of the rest of the world.
The Prime Minister stated that, internationally,
“we will play a stronger and more effective role as Global Britain overseas, working with our allies, deepening our trade ties, and using our presidency of the G7 to galvanise global action on climate change, girls’ education, fighting COVID-19 and improving our defences against future health security risks.”
Those are all welcome commitments. This year, the UK has a great opportunity to back up those words with action when we host a series of key global events, as my noble friend the Minister set out in her opening speech.
The purpose of these international occasions is to make tangible progress towards resolving the world’s biggest challenges. For us as hosts, these events are crucial opportunities to use our country’s well-respected international leadership to leverage action towards our priorities and reinforce the positions that the UK has powerfully practised and preached for decades.
As hosts, we should lead by example. However, by deciding to cut our investment in international development, I am afraid that we have made our job as hosts that much more difficult. At the Global Partnership for Education summit, we are asking the world to come together to raise $5 billion for global education while cutting our own funding for it by 40%. For COP 26, we are asking low-income countries to come forward with ambitious climate commitments while cutting our bilateral support to them by more than 50%.
At the G7, we need the wealthier countries of the world to make significant contributions to the global vaccination and broader recovery efforts, but we have not been able to make any contribution of our own to those efforts since before the aid reduction was announced six months ago. In the past few days, we have heard a welcome commitment from President Biden to donate 80 million doses of the Covid vaccine within six weeks. I fear that rigidly sticking to spending only 0.5% will mean that we are just not able to do the same. I hope I am wrong.
There is not time today to repeat the many arguments for why we should keep the promise we made to spend 0.7%, nor to list the real-world consequences to millions of the world’s poorest people of not doing so. Instead, I will ask my noble friend the Minister what I hope are constructive questions, some of which he may be familiar with.
First, on transparency, the gracious Speech commits the Government to continuing
“to provide aid where it has the greatest impact on reducing poverty and alleviating human suffering.”—[Official Report, 11/5/21; col. 3.]
Again, those are very welcome words. However, this is difficult to judge unless we see more transparency on where the aid cuts are falling, so will my noble friend the Minister commit to publishing the full details of the geographic and thematic budgets for the year ahead, as has been done in previous years? I look forward to the publication of the equalities impact assessment.
Secondly, on clarity, there was no legislation in the gracious Speech to change the 2015 international development Act, which, as your Lordships will know, commits us in law to spending 0.7% of our gross national income every year on international development. Any such legislation would not have been welcome; the view from all sides of this House and the other place is clear on that. Does this mean that Parliament will not get a vote on this matter? If so, can my noble friend provide an update on how the Government are ensuring that their actions are not in breach of the 2015 Act? I hope that, six months on, we will have moved past “considering carefully” and the “we will provide an update in due course” position.
Thirdly, on certainty, the briefing accompanying the Queen’s Speech commits us to returning
“to spending 0.7 per cent … when the fiscal situation allows.”
Can my noble friend provide any certainty on what the Government mean by that? Two weeks ago, the Bank of England said that it now expects the economy to return to its pre-crisis level by the end of this year. Does this mean that we will get back to 0.7% next year? I do hope so.
If we truly want to build back better from Covid-19, make progress towards the sustainable development goals, maintain—not tarnish—our international reputation, deliver on the ambitions of global Britain, show our values as a country and solve some of the biggest challenges of our time, we need to back up welcome words with real action. We need to step up, not step back. We must remove the self-imposed constraints on international development spending so that the United Kingdom can lead from the front. We must capitalise on our opportunities this year to help vaccinate the world, educate girls and quite literally save the planet. I hope that the Prime Minister will do just that.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, other speakers—notably the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg—have commented on the Government’s decision to impose huge cuts on the development aid budget. I agree with them and others who have argued that it is wrong in principle, given that there is a statutory obligation to spend 0.7% of GNI on development aid, and will be disastrous in practice, in the effect it will have on the lives of millions of poor people in the developing world.
I will illustrate these effects in one area, that of sexual and reproductive health, where the lives of girls and women will be seriously damaged. Sadly, our global reputation, which is high in this area of development, will also be jeopardised. The UK can be proud of the leadership role that it has played in this area in the past, as demonstrated in the Family Planning Summits of both 2012 and 2017. This is a good example of the soft power that the Government claim they want, so why jettison this by the cuts that they are now imposing? Why risk the progress that we have played a big part in achieving?
Between 2012 and 2020, there was a 66% growth in users of modern methods of contraception among African women and girls, from 40 million to more than 60 million, yet much more still has to be done, particularly for adolescent girls aged between 15 and 19. It is estimated that more than 40% of this age group in low-income and middle-income countries have an unmet need for modern contraceptive services, leading to millions of unintended pregnancies and unsafe abortions. Could the Minister tell the House how he thinks that one of the Government’s top priorities, girls’ education, can be progressed successfully against this background? Surely there is a serious inconsistency here.
I will set out the dire statistics on the cuts in this area, across all age groups. They are devastating. The UN agency responsible, UNFPA, has had its core funding from the UK cut by 60%, and its Supplies Partnership, which provides medicines and contraceptives to NGOs and health ministries in poor countries, by 85%. A high proportion of the UK’s bilateral programmes are delivered by NGOs, such as MSI Reproductive Choices and the International Planned Parenthood Federation. Their funding is also being slashed.
What does all this mean on the ground? It will lead to the closure of thousands of clinics and service delivery points, and an increase in the price of contraceptive supplies. Many women and girls, especially in rural areas, will be denied access to safe delivery and postnatal care. Estimates indicate that the cuts to UNFPA supplies alone will lead to around a quarter of a million maternal and child deaths, 14.5 million unintended pregnancies and nearly 4.5 million unsafe abortions. It will cost money, as well as lives. Estimates suggest that, for every $1 spent on family planning, Governments can save up to $6 on maternal care, the care of infants and abortion provision. There are longer-term implications too. High proportions of the populations of many poor countries are aged under 18, leading to very high youth unemployment and the social and economic costs that this poses. In the context of climate change and threats to food supplies, hunger and malnutrition follow, especially among children.
I ask the Government to think again. In the light of this evidence, they should reverse the cuts that they want to impose in this area and, more generally, as others have said, announce a rapid return to 0.7% of GNI on ODA. They need to monitor, country by country, the impact of these cuts for as long as they last. Can the Minister at least commit to that? We are in danger of undermining decades of progress in this area and, in doing so, abandoning our commitment to global Britain and to improving the quality of the lives of millions of poor women and girls across the world.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I also begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister. I give notice that I will be praying in aid the outstanding speech of my noble friend Lord Purvis. It is necessary for me to declare my interest as an ambassador for the Halo Trust, whose activities include mine clearance in several countries, particularly Afghanistan. It is on that country that I focus my attention.
With other NATO countries, the United Kingdom is withdrawing its military forces from Afghanistan. There was always going to be a date for withdrawal eventually, but it seems that others—the Taliban to mention one—are already taking advantage of that withdrawal, as we have seen most recently in the cynical and catastrophic bombing of a school, killing both male and female students. They were no doubt targeted because they were being educated under the same roof. There will be more to come, and stability in Afghanistan will be difficult to achieve and hazardous to maintain.
The United Kingdom has been at pains to emphasise publicly that we may be withdrawing our military forces but are not abandoning Afghanistan—a distinction that the people of Afghanistan may find hard to recognise. By the statements of our Government, we have made Afghanistan a special case and there is one activity that the people of Afghanistan would recognise and value, which is demining, not just by Halo, but by the Mines Advisory Group—and not just demining, but the neutralising of improvised explosive devices and the destruction of ammunition stockpiles.
Mines and IEDs present obvious physical danger, but their indiscriminate scattering and unexpected detonation has both emotional and mental implications. Halo has been active in Afghanistan since 1988, surviving consecutive changes in the regime and employing up to 1,000 at one stage, doing practical work in the field of demining, giving jobs to former combatants, creating new livelihoods and bringing contaminated land back to productive use. It was creating low-cost stability, if you like.
The United Kingdom Government have made a promise to the people of Afghanistan but, in reducing their financial support from the aid budget to Halo, they have undermined that promise. On Monday I heard the Minister repeat what I might describe as the government line. Today I say to him that, on soul and conscience, and in furtherance of the promise that the Government made, he should go back to the department and tell them to think again.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and for the Minister’s comprehensive and ambitious speech introducing this debate. I welcomed the Government’s integrated review as a necessary attempt to hold together the diverse interests, challenges and opportunities facing the UK in the immediate future. In my early career as a linguist at GCHQ, I learned that words and assumptions need to be interrogated, as they can be used to obscure reality. For example, in our context, an increased cap on nuclear weapons tells us nothing about numbers that might actually be intended or the rationale for them.
I think it was remarkable that reference to the European Union was almost completely missing in the review. This had been widely predicted as it seems that, for the Government, any such reference might be heard as an ideological remainer capitulation, yet the rationale for a tilt towards the Indo-Pacific makes sense only to a point: it is not just what we are tilting towards that matters, as what we are tilting away from has to be considered.
Put the fractious and loaded politics of Brexit to one side for a moment; we are still going to need a strong common alliance with our European neighbours if, for example, China and Russia are to be rightly understood and handled by the democratic West. Pretending that we can simply ignore the EU like a bad smell is ridiculous, and this ideological tilting at windmills needs to be challenged. To argue that we will engage with the EU by way of its member states—the review singles out three, Germany, France and Ireland—is to impose our understanding of how we think our European allies should organise themselves politically, rather than to engage with them on their own terms. In so doing, we overlook the point that the EU is more than the sum of its parts and has agency in and of itself. To ignore this agency is to shrink the diplomatic networks that the Government have access to in support of their stated diplomatic objectives.
However, as cuts to the overseas aid budget, and Yemen in particular—already remarked on—demonstrate, there is a potentially serious discrepancy between our rhetoric and our observed behaviour. We assert that we want to be a world leader in upholding the rule of law having a number of times threatened in the past couple of years to abrogate our responsibilities under international law, not least in the recent internal market Bill and overseas operations Bill. We might think we can simply move on, but that does not mean that our damaged reputation and the obvious—to everyone else, that is—gap between our rhetoric and behaviour go unnoticed internally and externally. It also reduces our credibility when we seek to hold other countries to the rule of law, and that impacts inevitably on global security in the longer term. Ethical assumptions lie at the heart of our political and economic choices. Ethics matter.
I come back to Russia. Chatham House published an immensely helpful paper this month addressing a number of myths and misconceptions about Russia. I commend it to the House. Basically, it urges a deep questioning of the assumptions that lie behind how we see, understand and strategise in relation to Russia. As we noted to our cost during the past five years negotiating our exit from the EU, any party to a relationship, especially a changing one, needs to develop an expertise in looking through the eyes of the other party, listening through their ears, hearing their language and interpreting it in order to know where to begin in offering a language of proposition or proposal. Failure to learn the language of the other is both stupid and costly.
The Church has to do this work every day, not least because we have partnerships in parts of the world where the world looks very different and our behaviour is read very differently from our intention or expectation. My work as a Soviet specialist developed during the Cold War. For my children and grandchildren, it is as remote as the English Civil War, but for most of us here it has shaped our world and the way we see it. I am not convinced that the integrated review will lead us to a deeper understanding of why Russians see the world the way they do. Building back better demands looking more seriously at the foundations of history. The UK needs to see how we are seen and why. Can the Minister assure us that the work of translation, interpretation and realism will be at the heart of implementation?
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
My Lords, the integrated review states:
“We will also build upon our close security partnerships, including with Israel and Saudi Arabia, to better protect our interests in the region.”
I urge the Government not to forget their long-standing true allies in the Middle East, despite the untruths and hatred that have spewed forth in the past week in connection with the Israel-Hamas dispute. I call for a fair and open-minded assessment of the situation, with a perspective from British history and in relation to the rest of the Middle East. The UK should join any eventual international effort to rehabilitate Gaza within some negotiated peace plan or political framework designed to resolve the area’s fundamental problems. That effort has to be led by the US, Qatar and Egypt, for it is Egypt that borders Gaza and has the power to open that border without ill result.
Sadly, the Biden Administration seem to have no plan save to revert to the deadly Iran nuclear deal, following in the footsteps of Obama and ignoring the benefit of hindsight. I urge the Government not to follow Biden and not to join in an effort to remove sanctions against Iran, thereby enabling it to continue to smuggle weapons, to continue its terrorist activities and, of course, to support Hamas in its drive to dominate the Middle East. Resurrecting the JCPOA will free Iran sooner or later to continue to enrich uranium and hide its military sites from inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Resurrecting the ineffective 2015 nuclear deal would allow billions of dollars to flow into the regime which will not be used for its suffering people. Iran has been arming Hamas for years. It wants to destroy the Abraham accords and any new concept of a co-operative Middle East. It is Biden’s apparent appeasement of Iran which lies behind the present chaos, along with Abbas’s cancellation of elections.
Hamas’s aim is not a state of Palestine, for that has been rejected several times over the years; it is the replacement of Israel by an Islamist state and the removal of every last Jew from Israel, just as all Jews have been dispossessed, persecuted, expelled, forbidden to live in or killed in that area. Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Algeria, Libya, Yemen and Lebanon are all Judenrein. The truth is that the dominant powers there cannot accept any Jewish presence in the area, and that is why ordinary negotiations between Israel and the others cannot succeed. Israel is the only state on earth whose enemies want to wipe it off the face of the earth.
Meanwhile we have taken our eyes of the real issues in that area. Syria appears to have been discussed in this House only once in the past year. Some 400,000 people have been killed there, including many Palestinians; 6 million people have been internally displaced and more than 6 million have fled. Its horrors and those of Lebanon, Yemen and Afghanistan make no mark. The Turks launched an attack on the Kurds, and there was no reaction. Islamists killed 94 Afghan schoolchildren and a Kabul mosque was bombed, and there was no reaction. Will the Minister proscribe Hamas in full to curb its actions?
The other action this country can take in order to calm the atmosphere is to withdraw from the forthcoming follow-up conference of the Durban racism conference of 2001. That conference degenerated into a hate-filled anti-Semitic meeting uniquely critical of Israel, giving cover to the real human rights abusers of the world. Attendees at the conference compared its anti-Jewish hysteria to 1930s Germany. The track record of Durban has been to harm race relations, poison progress and encourage anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and attacks. The USA, Australia and Canada have withdrawn from the Durban conference, and it is expected that other democratic countries will also do so, judging by their non-participation in previous follow-up conferences. I join the noble Lord, Lord Polak, in asking the Government to act to curb vicious anti-Semitism disguised as anti-Israel activity. Will the Government withdraw from Durban right now?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con) [V]
My Lords, I shall focus today on the UK’s relations with Afghanistan. They provide an example of the intersection between the objectives and strategy set out in the integrated review: promoting security, good governance and human rights as a force for good. They show the challenges which the UK faces in making its best efforts to champion global Britain.
Our International Relations and Defence Select Committee, which I chair, published a report on the UK and Afghanistan in January. Today I welcome the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, who is a member of the committee. Some of the key points we made in our report are as follows. The UK’s prioritisation of Afghanistan since 2010 has declined, but the challenges facing the country have not. They include terrorism, the fragile nature of the Afghan state, the ongoing Taliban insurgency and drug production and its trafficking. Indeed, Afghanistan is the source of 95% of the heroin on UK streets today. We were struck by the extraordinarily high level of civilian casualties over decades of conflict, the very high levels of poverty and humanitarian need, and the Afghan Government’s substantial level of aid dependency, with little prospect of developing alternative sources of revenue in the immediate future. Our inquiry was carried out as talks between the Afghan Government and the Taliban got under way. It was a moment of fragile hope. Those talks are now becalmed. Can the Minister update the House on how the Government plan to assist the restarting of effective talks and what the barriers to progress are?
We highlighted a number of major future challenges. For example, a successful outcome to peace talks must include a ceasefire, the reconciliation and reintegration of armed groups, respect for the rights of all Afghan citizens and a commitment not to provide support for terrorist groups. However, the Taliban’s commitment to a negotiated settlement and power sharing is not clear. It remains closely associated with al-Qaeda and the Haqqani network and ideologically opposed to the progress made on human rights since 2001. That process is in danger of being reversed, particularly for women and minorities such as the Hazara.
The withdrawal of US and NATO troops this year without a deal is likely to undermine the Afghan Government’s negotiating position. We recognise that fatigue with the deployment is not surprising—troops cannot stay for ever—but the consequences of withdrawal should not be underestimated. We conclude that international funding must remain an essential component of support for the Afghan people. The UK’s contribution has been significant, but our Government’s decision to cut their spending on aid from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI will have a serious impact on funding for Afghanistan. It is hard to hope that funding will be protected there when funding for Yemen, for example, has fallen precipitously.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ahmad for his helpful letter last month in response to questions I posed in the debate in this House on the integrated review about the Government’s plans post drawdown. Picking up on some of the points made in that letter, what recent discussions have the Government had with the US and other NATO allies on how to develop an enduring partnership with Afghanistan and continue to counter the terrorist threat and the trafficking of narcotics while protecting the vital progress made on human rights?
The UK has been heavily engaged with and in Afghanistan for two decades. It has contributed funding for military and development aims, employed high-level diplomacy and, tragically, lost hundreds of troops in active combat. I do not underestimate the complexity of the decisions facing the Government on this, but I ask that Parliament be kept informed of developments which affect us all.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, the integrated review of March this year was an important landmark in the UK Government’s definition of a post-Brexit international role for the country and set out a road map for the focus of Britain’s foreign development, security and defence policies for the next decade.
In terms of more immediate consequences, as Chatham House states in its comments on the review, it is
“an important piece of public diplomacy and shows the ‘government machinery’ of the civil service how resources should be allocated for these policies”
and soft power. Its publication gives a clearer sense of the UK’s ambitions and priorities. Its message of a renewed interest in the Indo-Pacific region, driven by a concern to contribute to meeting diplomatic and security challenges presented by an assertive China, will be welcome to the US and other Five Eyes allies—where the UK already has defence commitments such as the Five Power Defence Arrangements—and especially Japan.
I disagree with Chatham House’s view that our
“European neighbours are likely to be less clear on the impact for them in the messages contained in the Review.”
The UK’s continuing commitment to Europe’s security and defence through NATO is predominant in the document, so why do we need—as it suggests—longer-term ambitions for military relations with the EU? I do not support the UK being part of a European army.
The timing of the review could not have been more challenging, coinciding with Covid. The fact of Brexit clearly called for a broader articulation of the international role of the UK, something missing from more recent reviews focusing predominantly on security and defence. In this regard I strongly welcome the creation of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in advance of the review, signalling a welcome desire to see development and aid more aligned to diplomatic influence. Previously, I felt that the separate fiefdoms of the FCO and DfID were not helpful to our international influence, as they operated in their own silos—not always in a helpful way for UK plc as a whole.
I also respect the planned temporary reduction of the foreign aid budget from 0.7% to 0.5% of GDP. How will Her Majesty’s Government craft a coherent approach for the UK’s development policies that is aligned with the review’s broader policy goals?
It is fortuitous that the integrated review comes against the backdrop of the highest profile for UK diplomacy in decades. The country began its presidency of the UN Security Council in February and is to host both the G7 and the UN Climate Change Conference this year. Each of these provides opportunities for the Government to push forward their security, economic and climate change priorities.
With regard to policy in certain areas, I praise the UK’s reaction to events in Hong Kong and the offering of financial support to Hong Kong citizens arriving under the British national overseas passport scheme.
However, there are countries where the UK could use its influence more to solve long-running disputes. First, there is the Middle East; this might be a tall order, but can the Minister say whether we could be more of a mediator in the Israel/Hamas dispute or in the Iran/Saudi proxy conflict? I feel uneasy that we cannot sort out the settling of our debt with Iran, while condemning wholeheartedly the continued incarceration of Ms Zaghari-Ratcliffe. Also—I declare an interest as co-chair of the APPG for the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus—why cannot we take a more active role in trying to resolve the Cyprus problem, rather than relying on the UN, which, despite its best efforts, has achieved little in nearly 50 years? The UK policy that Greek and Turkish Cypriots must solve their own problems has clearly not worked either.
Elsewhere, I warmly welcome the review’s strong commitment to the Crown dependencies and overseas territories. I ask the Minister that financial assistance be extended to them in case of disaster-related emergencies.
I move on to defence and will set out briefly my reaction to the defence Command Paper and the Defence and Security Industrial Strategy. Against the first test—the accuracy of the assessment of changing threats and risks and the quality of the headline policy response—the integrated review scores well. The analysis of the changing national and international security environment up to 2030 looks thoughtful and comprehensive; the big question is whether the UK can enact a meaningful tilt to the Indo-Pacific region without weakening its ability to respond to crises in Europe. This seems a risk worth taking, as the Chinese threat is increasing, especially in the South China Sea and with regard to Taiwan.
On defence planning, it remains to be seen whether the model of persistent engagement overseas that is at the heart of the defence Command Paper, as well as the new integrated operating concept, will make the required difference in deterrence. I am nervous about the cutting of troop numbers. Finally, I welcome the focus on cyber and space defence.
Lord Boateng (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming to the House and commending the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister. His speech was particularly welcome in its focus on the importance—while recognising the Indo-Pacific tilt of the integrated review—of being active in Africa. He will find a ready echo of that sentiment on all sides of this House. I declare an interest at the outset as an ambassador for the Global Alliance for Vaccine and Immunisation and chair of Water and Sanitation for the Urban Poor.
Global co-operation and solidarity are vital to effectively responding to and mitigating the health and socioeconomic effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. The measures in the gracious Speech fall to be delivered at a time in which there is, globally, an increase in inequality, a threat to livelihoods and an increasing threat to peace and security and in which environmental sustainability and a capacity to respond effectively to natural disasters are threatened by the impact of the pandemic.
The challenge the virus presents to global diplomacy, to the work of effective multilateral organisations and to the effectiveness of a developmental response to the global crisis requires us, as a nation, to have an effective response to the pandemic and the health of the developing world, which is absolutely essential to our own continued health, and indeed to our security as a nation. The World Bank has rightly drawn attention to the need to ramp-up vaccine production to overcome current shortages in the world, and to develop partnerships across sectors to that effect. As such, it supports licensing deals and technology transfers to developing countries to increase supply and local production in different parts of the world, especially sub-Saharan Africa.
That raises the question, which I hope the Minister will address when winding up, of what position the United Kingdom will take in response to the United States’s very welcome acceptance of the need to address the issue of intellectual property and to bring about the changes in the WTO that will permit the manufacture and license of vaccines in countries such as South Africa, Nigeria, Ghana, Egypt and Senegal, which have the capacity, with some support, to manufacture vaccines. What will be the United Kingdom’s response to the US’s welcome initiative? We know that the EU has been lukewarm, to put it mildly, in its response. This is an opportunity for us to exercise our much-vaunted new post-Brexit freedoms outside the European Union, and come behind the United States to adopt a position in the WTO—with its welcome new, and very effective, leadership—to enable Africa and the developing world to develop their own pharmaceutical industries, and indeed to manufacture vaccines.
In the short term, there will clearly be a need for greater distribution of vaccines in the world. I have something to say briefly in response to the Minister’s quite correct assertion that we are now living much more in a time of competition in this regard. China has already provided vaccine assistance to 53 developing countries and has exported vaccines to 22 countries. China has exported 115 million doses of Chinese vaccines and India has exported 63 million. How many million doses have we exported? The answer is none. What are we doing, not just to support COVAX but to address this very real need, which exists throughout the developing world but particularly acutely where there are conflicts? What are we doing in Tigray and Cameroon to ensure that vaccines are distributed more effectively and provided in those war-torn areas? What are we doing to help bring those conflicts to an end?
Likewise—and I end my remarks on this—what are we doing in response to natural disasters, such as in St Vincent and the Grenadines? Will we deploy our ship in the region to help with the clear-up? How will we assist the country to respond to the very real need that exists there, at the moment, as we speak, for vaccines, because Covid has a hold in that country? These are questions that the Minister needs to answer, and answer in a spirit that we all understand and appreciate that we need a response—
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I remind noble Lords of the advisory five-minute limit.
Lord Boateng (Lab) [V]
Indeed. I end on this note, with this challenge to the Minister. We are rightly thinking about the Middle East at this time. There was a great teacher by the name of Hillel in the Middle East, who lived at the time of our Lord. He said:
“If I am not for me, who will be for me?”
Yes, it is important to recognise our national self-interest, but he added:
“If I am only for me, what am I?”
We share a common humanity. He also asked: “If not now, when?” We need focus, we need resources and we need to act now.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I call next the very patient noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I first offer my warm congratulations on a moving, forward-looking and excellent maiden speech by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister and thank my noble friend Lady Goldie for her excellent introduction. The new programme takes the country forward, building on the Government’s strong electoral showing and the success of the vaccination rollout. Frankly, that makes one proud to be British.
I declare my interests as in the register, first as chair of Crown Agents, a not-for-profit British development company. We have been much involved in the delivery of vaccines, notably to our overseas territories, with Gibraltar now prominent on the green list. Crown Agents has also helped Ukraine to secure non-Russian Covid vaccines and to improve its healthcare system over the last five years. This partnership has led to $60 million of savings in health expenditure and fewer deaths. I believe it is a model that we could replicate elsewhere. To answer the previous speaker, we work with Gavi to deliver vaccines in some of the hardest-to-reach places on earth, bringing to that vital task our knowledge of the chill chain for medicines.
I welcome the creation of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. It brings together our international efforts, integrating diplomacy and development to achieve greater impact—for example, to address the links between poverty and climate change and to promote English and our cultural heritage across the world, from Shakespeare to the music industry. The cut in development spending is disappointing, but it makes the work of our high commissions and embassies, and the pursuit of value for money, even more important. The Prime Minister’s trade envoys have been given more support by DIT, including my helpful and noble friends Lady Meyer, for Ukraine, Lady Nicholson, for Iraq, Lord Bates, for Ethiopia, Lord Risby, for Lebanon, and many others.
I also support the FCDO and DIT tilt to the Indo-Pacific region. As chair of the UK-ASEAN Business Council, I have been particularly glad to support HMG’s successful efforts to secure post-Brexit dialogue status with ASEAN. It is a region and a trade zone with huge growth potential. Two-way trade was at a peak of £42 billion in 2019. Vietnam, which presided last year, has already attracted much western investment. Brunei is now in the hot seat, and we have been working with it on building back after Covid, with infrastructure, health, energy transition, climate change and a revival of tourism all areas of focus for the 10 ASEAN countries.
That brings me on to trade. For those of us who have studied economics, the theory of comparative advantage is a key tenet. Trade should be encouraged because it benefits both consumers and producers who are productive, creative and effective. It helps developing countries, whose products get squeezed by protectionism. I am a fan of the post-World War II trading system, now in the hands of the WTO, but it struggles to move forward. It is disappointing that the last really significant step forward multilaterally was in 1992, when agriculture was brought properly within the system.
It is regrettable that protectionist forces are found in democracies, which really should know better. Examples can help to bring that home. The former MEP John Longworth was right to call out India; it is a good friend to Britain, but it has failed to abide by tribunal decisions and its treatment of the British telecoms firm Vodafone left much to be desired. The US—which I love, as a home to several family members—failed under President Trump to agree to the appointment of arbitrators at the WTO. Worse, the US has been very slow to agree to export vaccines, even to poor countries desperately in need and even of the AstraZeneca vaccine, mysteriously still not approved by the US regulator. We all know that a US trade agreement will be hard, so it makes sense to start negotiations elsewhere first.
I strongly support the efforts of our Trade Secretary, the energetic Liz Truss, as we move on from Brexit, particularly her efforts on Australia and on CPTPP. Of course, these agreements must bring benefits in exchange for any concessions offered, for example on data and services, and the abolition of discriminatory protectionism on products such as whisky. I hope that the G7 summit in Cornwall will give a new boost to trade.
I have run out of time, but in closing I would like to mention one other troubling example: the apparent US support for a TRIPS waiver on intellectual property rights for Covid vaccines. This proposal has a great number of problems and would really hurt industry. AstraZeneca has been an example to the world in forgoing much of the profit from the production of its Covid vaccine. It is puzzling to suggest that they should be treated so badly.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, in congratulating earlier speakers on some really telling contributions to the debate so far. My focus in this debate on defence and foreign policy will be its impact on developments on the African continent. In this regard, while I welcome the Armed Forces Bill and support for the Armed Forces covenant, I am aghast at the decision to break a manifesto promise and drastically cut the size of the Army.
On Saturday 15 May, the MoD released details of a successful seizure by UK troops of a Daesh arms cache during a peacekeeping operation in Mali, in the Sahel. This deployment to Mali as part of the UN peacekeeping mission was the first of the kind and congratulations are due to the UK taskforce. It provides the UN with a highly specialised, long-range reconnaissance capability in remote areas, helping the UN to understand, respond to and protect civilians. Sadly, that is just the tip of an insidious iceberg.
Across the Sahel terrorist groups, including Boko Haram, ISIS and al-Qaeda in Nigeria, the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda, South Sudan, Sudan and the DRC, and ISIS as far south as Cabo Delgado in Mozambique, are increasingly active. In that context, the 100 or so Light Dragoons and Royal Anglians working well in Mali can hardly scratch the surface of terrorist threats in Africa. Yet at a recent Select Committee meeting, the Foreign Secretary confirmed that bilateral aid to Africa would fall by two thirds in 2021-22, to just £764 million, bringing swingeing cuts to programmes in Nigeria, South Sudan, the DRC and the Sahel in general, among others.
The DRC has suffered decades of unrest and terrorist incursions, with a heavy commitment from UN missions supporting hundreds of thousands of civilians, resulting in IDPs. Meanwhile the Central African Republic has rarely been in the headlines, yet a detailed briefing from the CSW reveals that despite the signing of a peace agreement in 2019, violence remains a persistent problem in the CAR. Clashes between the CAR’s armed forces and armed groups in Alindao, 300 kilometres east of the capital, Bangui, resulted in the destruction of two IDP camps. UN peacekeepers continue to be targeted, and violence in the CAR continued to escalate through the general election at the end of 2020. The UN estimated that, overall, more than 120,000 people fled their homes and became displaced.
There are increasing reports of the use of landmines by warring parties in the CAR, with Russian paramilitaries fighting alongside government troops. The Coalition des Patriotes pour le Changement—the CPC—is accused of human rights violations and using landmines and explosive devices across the region. On 8 May MINUSCA, the UN mission in the CAR, issued a statement expressing concern regarding the use of explosive devices and terming it a serious violation of international humanitarian law. It warned that those responsible could be tried for crimes against humanity.
Meanwhile, at the other end of the continent an armed conflict has been raging in the northern provinces of Mozambique, with Cabo Delgado suffering particularly violent attacks. These attacks have been growing in strength and brutality, and the recent attacks in Palma have caused tremendous psychological damage to the communities. The UN estimates that nearly 700,000 people have already been displaced, so they are in dire need of humanitarian assistance. Homes, health centres and schools have been destroyed, according to Médecins Sans Frontières.
The Government are never slow to stress the UK’s global influence in soft power through international institutions, and through language and culture. The BBC World Service plays a leading role here, with the financial support of the FCDO, and is internationally recognised as key to British soft power. The BBC World Service receives some 75% of its funding from the licence fee, with a top-up from government. It has been able to open new international bureaux in Nairobi and elsewhere. With 12 new language services, audience figures have increased by 11%. The FCDO funding is essential if the BBC World Service is to maintain its global reputation for accurate and reliable news and information.
Lord Risby (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister on his excellent speech and warmly welcome him to your Lordships’ House.
In the words of the Government’s integrated review, we are living in an era of “intensifying geopolitical competition”. In this country, we certainly know that in Russia we face a country which has interests and ethics very different to our own, and which does not share our regard for a European order based on rules. To this day, Russian troops remain in Ukraine, and not only in Crimea. I say this with feeling as chairman of the British Ukrainian Society. We should not forget that 2014 saw the first use of armed force to change European borders in more than a generation. Suffice to say that the considerable help we quietly give Ukraine on a number of levels, on a scale unmatched by any other European country, is deeply appreciated and valuable.
We as a nation have, as a result of the long-drawn-out Brexit process, inevitably seemed to some to have become somewhat more inward-looking. However, irrespective of whether Brexit was or was not the right decision, we must now move on—and that is exactly what we are attempting to do. We remain a country of hard and hugely admired soft-power reach—reference has been made to the BBC World Service. Who more than us has the will to try to underpin an international order that is open, one where our allies and partners, frequently less capable, are made more secure from predatory activity? The integrated review alludes to the kind of world we will soon inhabit if we do not become more outward looking and engaged—a world where authoritarianism advances and liberal democracy, which we all cherish, assume an increasingly defensive posture.
Our American friends remain our closest and most significant allies. We should never forget the role they played in helping us to keep western Europe free in the Cold War. For all the aspirations of European defence initiatives, however intentioned, today the United States uniquely has the means—and, for the most part, the will—to uphold the geostrategic posture that dissuades and deters threats to peace. Today, on our continent it finances 70% of NATO’s budget, an act of extraordinary and continuing generosity, irrespective of who is in the White House. There were some murmurs a few months go that the new President’s Administration would look away from us in Europe. With Secretary of State Blinken’s recent meeting with our Foreign Secretary, these notions are clearly misplaced, following his most positive statements.
We have also shown our willingness to underpin the international order, from the pre-eminent role we play in NATO’s enhanced forward presence and Baltic air policing mission to the support we provide to Ukraine. Likewise, our renewed involvement in the Indo-Pacific—a geopolitical theatre increasingly connected to our Euro-Atlantic area—is welcome. Operation Fortis, the maiden operational deployment of HMS “Queen Elizabeth”, and the escorting Royal Navy strike group includes US aircraft and US naval assets, seeking to underline the freedom of international waterways.
Japan has openly welcomed our growing naval presence, as have India and the countries of the five-power defence arrangements. They understand that we are one of the few countries external to the Indo-Pacific that can contribute to this role. Indeed, Japan has welcomed us, not only as a security provider but also as a valuable trading partner. Japan actively supports our admission to the CPTTP, which it chairs, which is set to become the largest zone of high economic growth in the world.
Our tilt to the Indo-Pacific region, the refocus on the Euro-Atlantic area and our willingness to step up and act internationally in terms of collective security show that Britain is re-engaging with the world. It shows how we can move on after a particularly stressful political and health period in our history.
Finally, while maintaining our strong US links, reconnecting positively with our European neighbours and forging new relationships further abroad, we should move to make our Commonwealth links more central in our country and fellow members’ countries. That grouping of countries puts up a mirror on the world in all its complexity. I look forward to the day when many countries can have an intermediary or associate status that is now not possible but would be very well received by our many friends and allies in the world.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, I join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Udny- Lister on his outstanding maiden speech. The gracious Speech drew reference to measures to counter hostile activity by foreign states and measures to reduce poverty and alleviate human suffering. In this regard, I wish to refer to the importance of the Commonwealth. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Risby, also mentioned it.
It is regrettable that the CHOGM meeting in Rwanda has had to be postponed as a result of the continuing impact of the Covid pandemic. With Africa making up the largest grouping in the Commonwealth and with the immediate challenges of health management, climate change, conflict resolution and job creation, the integrity of the group is more important now than ever. I entirely concur with the moving speech of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury that reconciliation is the best protector of peace. All too often in Africa our approach to the ongoing crises that beset the continent is reactive rather than proactive.
Earlier this week, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, raised the issue of our Government’s support for landmine clearance. Landmines have been the scourge of many war-torn countries. I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, also mentioned it in his speech. It is not just the removal and disposal of the explosive remnants of war; prevention, with increased training and counter-IED tactics, is just as important.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that women’s issues and challenges should be at the top of the agenda for the postponed CHOGM. I also share her concerns about cutting the aid budget.
Several noble Lords mentioned the increased threat to cybersecurity. The RUSI paper issued last month highlighted the threat of fraud and cybersecurity breaches to national security. As we converge from the old economy to the new, and with almost everyone owning a mobile phone, now is the time to consider measures to introduce a digital ID. This would entail embracing harmonised standards and authentication rules across all Commonwealth member states.
The National Security and Investment Act specifies cryptographic authentication and AI as key technologies to solve many of the global security challenges. The Minister, in opening this debate, spoke about the advances in technology. Given the United Kingdom’s leadership on artificial intelligence and disruptive technologies, can the Minister, in winding up, elaborate on what initiatives have been taken promoting knowledge transfer to the Commonwealth family of nations?
At a time when leadership and good management are key to the maintenance of peace and stability, as well as managing the global Covid pandemic, institutions such as the Commonwealth have a pivotal role to play.
In conclusion, I believe that the United Kingdom can take the lead within the Commonwealth to promote digital integrity and trust, and to modernise the group in tandem with the digital revolution.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con) [V]
My Lords, Her Majesty the Queen stated in her address to Parliament:
“My Government will uphold human rights and democracy across the world.”
Today I ask Her Majesty’s Government to support women in Afghanistan at a time when the Afghan peace negotiations hang in the balance.
Attacks on women and girls in Afghanistan have been increasing and recently we saw the terrible attack in Kabul, which mostly killed girls leaving school. My own recent discussions with Afghan women show clearly that they are very afraid of what will happen after NATO troops go. They have already seen senior female judges, journalists and politicians killed or maimed by terrorist attack. Girls’ schools, opened with international support, have been closed again in Taliban areas. We must help the Afghans to maintain the gains they have made towards a more inclusive society. We need bold action to make women’s lives secure as NATO troops withdraw, and to fulfil our commitments to UN Security Council resolutions on women, peace and security and to the principles of responsibility to protect.
It is critical the Taliban returns to the peace table, otherwise there may be a return to the lawlessness that led to 9/11 and later to ISIS in Iraq and Syria. However, we need incentives to add to the sanctions if we want the Taliban to behave differently. Surely, we want there to be a truly independent state, drawing on its own significant resources to redevelop its society. Pouring our money into the Afghan Government’s coffers is not the only answer. Above all, this means innovative thinking to keep the women safe. Given the development funding we provide to the Afghan Government, we should demand that they provide real security for all senior women and schools for girls through provision of bodyguards and support from the Afghan national army and police force, and that they must continue to fight for women’s safety in the peace negotiations. Does the Minister agree this should be a priority for the G7 and for the UK to take up in its bilateral and multilateral diplomacy?
The Afghan peace negotiations need more women at the table. The current arrangement of only four women is not enough for women’s views to be heard in all meetings or for significant representation at the different sub-committees. Research shows that when there are women at peace negotiations, the peace agreements tend to be more enduring. The negotiators also need to be able to gather views from women across the country. I therefore strongly support the FCDO funding to help the establishment and work of women in civil society. I welcome the reference to civil society in the G7 Foreign and Development Ministers’ Meeting communiqué of 5 May and the collective view of donors to Afghanistan that women must be engaged in the peace process and that aid conditionality should apply. Has all this happened? Is the UK withholding aid in view of the problems that women and other civil society actors are currently experiencing and are likely to experience more in the future? The situation is now urgent. We need to start considering now what support will be needed for the implementation of a peace settlement and what to do if there is not one. We should be mindful that peace agreements do not always lead to peace.
If a peace agreement can be reached, would the UN send a peacekeeping force to oversee transition? The UN General Assembly has just adopted a new resolution on the responsibility to protect. Can this help to ensure timely and decisive action to safeguard those threatened?
I welcome Her Majesty’s Government’s 2020 report on the UK national action plan regarding United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325, in respect of which Afghanistan is a priority country. This is the biggest test of our commitment to the women, peace and security agenda.
After all the lives lost and the billions in aid that the UK and others have put into Afghanistan, are we really going to stand back and let the Talban take control again? We should be in no doubt that the Taliban will kill the educated—those in government and the military, especially women; and the women they do not kill will be subjugated. Surely, we must put support for Afghan women at the heart of our policy as we withdraw the protection they currently have through the presence of NATO and other troops.
I ask this Government to take a lead and stand up to that test.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. I was not able to speak on Monday, which might have been my more natural home, but I am pleased to speak today and refer to two issues under this general heading.
First, the gracious Speech states:
“My Ministers will implement the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy.”
I am with the review where it refers to
“sustaining strategic advantage though science and technology”.
I am glad that, in her introduction, the Minister referred to soft power and the importance of science in maintaining our security. But the review 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. We know the importance of science, medical science in particular, from the acknowledged success in developing and delivering the Covid-19 vaccine, but the emphasis on national competition in this context is simply wrong. Scientists compete to be first, of course, but in this context their nationality is irrelevant. We know this from the vaccine programme. Co-operation between actors public and private from many different parts of the world has been crucial to its success: a truly international effort in which international co-operation has been the foundation, not competition.
Unfortunately, this reflects the Prime Minister’s “global Britain” rhetoric—just sound and bluster with no substance. When he attributed the vaccine success to capitalism and greed, he was wrong. The idea that private ingenuity and naked competition produced the vaccines is a misleading fantasy. The infrastructure that produced the Covid-19 vaccines and that helps to secure our greater security was nurtured in publicly funded universities, public institutes and heavily subsidised private labs.
Secondly, I refer to the statement that:
“Measures will be introduced to provide National Insurance contribution relief for employers of veterans”.
This will be provided for in the National Insurance Contributions Bill currently before the Commons, and which this House will consider in due course. It is far from clear from any of the published material what exactly this concession is expected to achieve. How effective in promoting employment among veterans is it likely to be? It is therefore right that, initially at least, it is being introduced for a limited period, up to April 2024. It would be helpful if the Minister could give an assurance that proper research will be undertaken as to its effectiveness before it is extended. Crucially, does it lead to a net increase in employment among veterans and, to the extent that there are more jobs, what sort of employment?
Perhaps the Minister could also confirm that this is just relief for the employer in terms of secondary class 1 contributions and not released to the veterans themselves. Perhaps it should also be made clear that the relief is only for a single year. What we are talking about in cash terms, in respect of someone on median earnings, is a one-off saving to an employer of about £3,000: a substantial sum, but not that substantial if it is intended to provide a job for 10 or more years. We also need to know whether the payments will lead to permanent and not short-term employment.
Finally, it would be appropriate for the Government to give an assurance that they remain committed to providing adequate pensions for those who made their career as a member of the Armed Forces. It would be wrong if this is a harbinger of the intention to expect our veterans to rely more than they currently do on further employment.
Lord Jopling (Con) [V]
My Lords, I cannot think of a greater shift in geopolitical world power in my lifetime than the rise of China over the last 50 years. I remember visiting China for the first time in 1973 with Lord Shaw of Northstead, who sadly died a few months ago. There we found what I will describe as a sleeping giant: drab, solemn and brandishing the Little Red Book. But at about that time, China introduced the profit motive into the economy and superimposed it on to the communist system. This caused a dramatic explosion in economic activity which released the inbuilt entrepreneurial instincts and genius of the Chinese people. Now, China is one of the world’s most dynamic economies. It has been an astonishing change and has been likened to a young bird breaking out of its shell. But with it, sadly, has come a partial—I emphasise the word “partial”—rejection of the global liberal order which has been enjoyed successfully by so much of the world over recent decades.
Today, sadly, we find China adopting an aggressive and confrontational posture towards the world in so many aspects: be it Hong Kong; the disputes in the South China Sea; the treatment of the Uighurs and other minority groups, which the noble lord, Lord Alton, referred to; human rights; secrecy; investment in overseas utilities and resources giving potential power; or even Taiwan—perhaps the greatest danger of all—where we could find ourselves in open warfare unless we are very careful.
China also confronts us backed by the world’s second largest military power. We heard earlier about its potential to have the largest naval fleet in the world. We must of course be robust in expressing our serious concerns at these developments. I am old enough to remember a similar show of strength by the USSR after World War II, when it flexed its muscles. This caused us to combat the Russians’ aggressiveness by creating NATO, an alliance that has perhaps been the most successful in the history of the world.
At that time NATO’s success was echoed by an arrangement being set up in south-east Asia, SEATO. It was not a success and was quietly abandoned, mainly because there were no threats in the region, unlike the threats that China produces now. Our approach to these should be that we pursue an open but frank dialogue with Beijing and promote a balanced policy towards China that protects allied security without compromising the core values on which both the global liberal order and our way of life were founded.
I ask this question of the Government: should we not be wondering whether it would be wise to set up new alliances of nations in south-east Asia also alarmed by the intemperance of modern China? I do not necessarily mean a rehash of SEATO. The defence review refers to
“closer defence cooperation with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member states”
but should we not be wondering whether it would be wise to have a more formal alliance? Will the Government tell us more about their feelings about building alliances and strengthening existing ones? Surely there is merit in pursuing diplomacy backed by unity and strength.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Jopling.
The gracious Speech states:
“My Government will introduce measures to increase the safety and security of its citizens.”
The safety and security of their citizens is indeed every Government’s first duty but I wonder whether the focus on military might neglects the lessons of the last year and a half by not mentioning disease as a threat to citizens’ safety, with some 128,000 deaths from Covid to date. Are the Government doing enough to fulfil their duty to keep us safe from the virus as new variants emerge?
The key question, to which I would really like an answer, is: do the Government accept the words of the head of the WHO, Tedros Ghebreyesus, that
“Nobody is safe until everyone is safe”?
That logic, if we follow it, says that everyone must be vaccinated urgently and in a fair and systematic way. The WHO’s fair allocation framework sets out a stepwise plan to do this. Why have we undermined our support for the COVAX initiative by refusing to share our excess vaccines? Money is not the answer now; supplies of vaccines are what is needed. Since the Serum Institute of India has necessarily had to stop supplying vaccines to COVAX, it has little to distribute.
The notes accompanying the gracious Speech boast that the UK is
“a world leading development donor”
and:
“In the last year alone, we spent £1.4 billion to support the international effort to fight COVID-19”.
However, the UK’s leadership on overseas development aid funding is being undermined by its refusing to support measures such as the WTO’s C-TAP, the Covid technology access pool, and the TRIPS waiver proposal to the WTO by India and South Africa for the temporary lifting of IP rights and other barriers to allow all countries, rich and poor, to produce their own vaccines, with quality overseen by the WHO.
Since the US’s announcement of support for the TRIPS waiver just a few short days ago, other countries such as France, Spain and New Zealand have also come out in support. That makes over 100 countries now supporting it. What about us? In response to a question that I put to the Leader of the House last week, during questions on the Covid update, on whether the US had sought our support, she replied that
“we are in discussions with the US and WTO members to facilitate increased production and supply of Covid vaccines.”
That is great, but then she went on to say:
“There are other issues—for instance, licensing agreements—which can also boost production.”—[Official Report, 13/5/21; col. 291.]
That is more disappointing because it is the same reply that I and other noble Lords received to the amendment on this issue that I tabled during the passage of the Trade Act last October. This reliance on voluntary action by big pharmaceuticals is to place hope over experience. These are not organisations guided by altruism but hard-nosed opportunists that at every turn have proven themselves morally bankrupt. Why do we allow them to continue to enjoy such monopolies over essential medicines that are global public goods? Where have the Government got to in the dialogue with the Americans on the sharing of IP rights, knowhow and data with all countries so that we can get the vaccine supplies that the world needs to keep us all safe? It is not only the right thing to do; enlightened self-interest dictates it.
I want to say a few words about the plight of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. I start by saying that I deplore all violence and deaths on all sides of the conflict but, as the occupying power and an illegal one at that, the Israeli Government have failed in their duty to uphold the equality and human rights of the occupied people. In the Government’s efforts to secure a ceasefire in Israel and Gaza, will they emphasise that there must be no return to “normal”? That would be an abomination. “Normal” for the Gazan means a blockade, violations of human rights, the detention of children and daily humiliations. Will they also demand transparency from both parties and open access for journalists and independent observers?
I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend Lord Purvis’s comments about the Government’s cuts to the ODA budget. The Government say they will support the health systems in developing countries but then go on to cut successful programmes such as the SuNMaP 2 programme in Nigeria, which funds the Malaria Consortium’s attempts to build real resilience in health systems in six states. I declare my interest as a trustee of the Malaria Consortium. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this issue?
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister on an immaculate maiden speech. I particularly liked his occasional references to keeping the Government up to the mark, in which I think he can play a very useful role in your Lordships’ House, given his previous experience.
Today’s debate on the gracious Speech focuses on defence and foreign affairs. I do not think many would disagree with the comprehensive speech by my noble friend Lady Goldie, which described the world in which we live at the moment as significantly more dangerous and unstable than perhaps we remember in the past. The challenge of the current global pandemic, added to those of massive population growth and accelerating climate change, make an extremely dangerous combination.
I want to talk about a further source of huge instability. Interestingly, what I want to talk about was reflected only this week, I think on Monday. The presidency of the Security Council of the United Nations is currently held by China, and on Monday it organised an informal meeting to examine the impact of emerging technologies on international peace and security and how to mitigate the potential risks. I do not know which technologies they discussed, but one that should be high on the agenda is the huge enhancement in communications and the threats that brings.
The whole world of the internet and mobile phones has been a blessing for billions of people and transformed opportunities to communicate, but with it has come the power of others to control it and use it against them for criminal or subversive ends. The enormous increase in cyber hacking and scams has brought with it the huge new industry of cybersecurity, which struggles to contain it.
I was very interested in the comments of Ciaran Martin, the first head of the National Cyber Security Centre, who talked this week about the need to ban ransomware payments to hackers who steal vital data. In the last couple of weeks, we have seen one enormous ransomware attack which shut down the colonial pipeline and seriously endangered the fuel supplies of the whole east coast of the United States. Only a few days later there was a serious attack on the Irish health service, similar to the one that did such damage to the NHS.
Ciaran Martin estimated the global cost of hacking and cyber disturbances at £120 billion. Interestingly, an article in the Times said:
“the NCSC handled more than three times as many ransomware incidents in 2020 than in the previous year. A recent survey … found that almost half of British businesses were targeted … and a quarter had paid a ransom. Hackers … are often sheltered by hostile states including Russia”.
We now face increased activity by criminals or malign foreign Governments, which represents a major threat to our critical national infrastructure, not least since the far greater capabilities of 5G apparently substantially increase the potential points of attack.
Therefore, to protect our national security, it is vital that we give every encouragement to the new UK businesses working in cybersecurity. I was quite surprised to see the growth of such an amazing new industry. Apparently, there are already 1,200 companies working in the field of cybersecurity. I and many other noble Lords strongly supported the National Security and Investment Act, which gives the power to protect such companies if they suffer any unwelcome overseas interest. In that connection, it is interesting to note the number of recent attempts by the Chinese Government or Chinese companies to take them over. I want to draw to your Lordships’ attention the importance of that and the threat it poses not just to our critical national infrastructure but to our vital national defences.
I welcome the emphasis in the integrated review on the vital importance of cybersecurity, the creation of a national cyber force for offensive cyber operations against any who attack us, and the publication this year of a very necessary new cyber strategy.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I want to address the cuts in official development assistance and to concentrate on their effects on health research and health interventions for and in lower and middle-income countries. I must declare my interest as vice-chair of the APPG on Malaria and Neglected Tropical Diseases. These cuts are massive, immediate and catastrophic.
Regarding research, the ODA support to UKRI and the global challenges research fund has been immediately cut by £120 million, which is nearly half the previously committed amount. Among many affected projects is the world-class research led by the Royal Veterinary College in London through the One Health Poultry Hub: a £20 million programme involving 27 institutions in 10 countries. This focuses on infectious zoonotic disease and antimicrobial resistance in poultry in Asia. It faces a 67% cut in its budget. However, we know that the next pandemic in humans is very likely to arise from animals, very possibly from poultry and very possibly in Asia. At the world-renowned Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, major research cuts are required in multiple programmes on human health. I highlight the cut of 68% to the ARISE programme, which is looking at human health in informal settlements in Asian and African countries and has helped these communities in their responses to the Covid pandemic.
On health interventions, the flagship UK-funded Ascend programme delivers preventive drugs for neglected tropical diseases to African countries. Just in January, the Prime Minister reiterated the UK’s support
“to protect everyone from pain, disfigurement and poverty caused by NTDs”.
Yet, the Ascend programme is now facing cuts of around £130 million to a total budget of £220 million. The programme has already been seriously interrupted by Covid-19 but has repurposed much of its activities to aid the Covid-19 efforts in 11 endemic countries. The current cut will not only halt those efforts but result in the cessation of drug treatments for target NTDs. Children who could be protected will be put at serious risk of going blind or developing completely preventable disfiguring and debilitating diseases. These are diseases for which no vaccines exist. The drugs that prevent them are donated for free by pharmaceutical companies such as our own GSK, but they will go unused.
In poor communities, good health is crucial to enable education, work and economic and social progress. To improve the well-being of such communities is not only a moral and humanitarian responsibility; it is in our own self-interest to create stable societies of growing wealth from which people will not migrate.
While these cuts are devastating for the current research and preventive programmes funded by ODA, they involve relatively small amounts of money in the context of the current pandemic: no more than 1% in total of the current budget deficit. I maintain that these cuts are totally disproportionate when we consider that £37 billion has been spent on the Covid test and trace system in the UK. One thirty-seventh of that, which is £1 billion, would avoid most if not all of the proposed cuts to overseas health research and interventions.
In conclusion, these cuts are contrary to our aspirations as a global scientific power. They damage our international reputation—we are the only G7 country to reduce its aid budget in a time of global crisis—and they seriously diminish our soft power reach. What soft power is greater than the gift of health? They run counter to our commitments to the sustainable development goals and they will diminish our capability to address major global challenges like food security, antimicrobial resistance and pandemic infectious disease risks. I submit that the damage far outweighs the savings made and I ask the Minister if Her Majesty’s Government will reconsider these cuts.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, have withdrawn from the speakers’ list, so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Fall.
Baroness Fall (Con) [V]
My Lord, I welcome the many learned speeches from noble Lords this afternoon, many of whom have vast experience and knowledge of this very important topic.
As the daughter of a diplomat, I was brought up on a diet of British foreign policy and its mantra to protect and advance British interests. The battle of my father’s time was the Cold War, but we have inherited a more complex landscape and our enemies are more diverse and agile. Alongside this are the big geopolitical challenges of our time, of which the deterioration of relations between China and the West is dominant. We see this played out like the proxy wars of old, for example, in tech and trade. But we should be wary of calling this a second Cold War. China is not the Soviet Union; its economic power is far greater and more sustainable and, whether we like it or not, we must co-operate with China to find solutions to some of the world’s biggest problems, such as climate change.
I commend the Government for the integrated review, which attempts to set out to answer the question: what is Britain’s role in the world today? I will focus on three issues in my brief remarks. The first goes back to China. In the integrated review, China is described as a “systemic competitor”. If we look across the board, to the economy, security, human rights and the need to address global problems, our approach looks pragmatic, though at times a bit inconsistent. We welcome inward investment and have rightly put in place legislation to properly scrutinise it. We rightly call out human rights abuses, yet we have been careful not to use the label “genocide”. We send our ships to the South China Sea and, at the same time, we invite China to the COP 26 meeting, recognising, again rightly, that co-operation is needed if any progress can be made on climate change.
Who are our allies in this approach? While it is clear that China has become a convening issue for many Western democracies, it is also notable that we are not are all aligned—take Germany and New Zealand, for example. Seeing Australia getting blown around by its unilateral approach suggests that we might do well to take a multilateral one ourselves, possibly tucking in behind the Biden Administration.
If we consider China a systemic competitor, this warrants a systemic response by us. By that, I mean one which brings together the security, economic, human rights and climate change responses under one umbrella. I wonder whether the Government should consider an NSC sub-group, for example, on China, to strengthen and co-ordinate our response across Whitehall.
I turn to nuclear. To me, the commitment to increase our nuclear arsenal sets a dismal example to other powers who support non-proliferation. It is also a strange priority for taxpayers’ money, at a time when the economic outlook is difficult. There seems to be little attempt to set out a rationale for the policy, which to my mind also sits uneasily with our decision to make drastic cuts to our aid budget, which I will turn to next.
The cut from 0.7% to 0.5% acts as a double whammy, alongside a shrinking economy that would already have led to substantial reductions. If you want to see global action on climate change, insure against mass migration, combat terrorism, eradicate poverty and counter world pandemics, as well as compete with China’s growing influence, the provision of 0.7% is a good way to go about it. It is in our national interests and it blatantly promotes them at the same time.
All this comes at such a critical moment for Britain, as we relaunch ourselves on the world stage post Brexit and host COP 26 and the G7. This is a G7 that puts women and girls at the centre of its agenda, and yet we witness devastating cuts to many programmes that are designed to support them. Taken together, I believe that the spending decision around our nuclear arsenal and aid does not represent the best strategy for the promotion of British national interests at this critical juncture.
I now turn to Afghanistan. I, like many others, have wholeheartedly welcomed President Biden’s return to a more multilateral approach on the global stage, but, sadly, I cannot support the decision to press ahead with American withdrawal from Afghanistan before the peace talks are finalised. This is not a peace plan but an exit plan, and I fear that it is likely to lead to instability and future conflict; it already has. So much that we and our brave service men and women have fought for over the decades—to build lasting peace in the region and within society to help women and girls—will have been in vain. No one wants for ever wars, but we are more likely to sow the seeds of a future security problem if we leave in a hurry.
Now that we have left the EU, we need to be more, not less, focused on how we maximise our influence in the world. We need to leverage a systemic approach to geopolitical issues at home and build a multilateral approach to like-minded powers abroad to promote British interests at this crucial time.
Lord Marlesford (Con) [V]
My Lords, of the many problems we face, one of the most far-reaching is the growing instability in the Islamic world. Its destabilisation is not caused by the religion of Islam, which has, over the centuries, added so much learning and culture to global civilisation. The problem has been, and is, political Islam, which seeks to promote and impose theocratic government under so-called sharia law. This is complicated by the Sunni-Shia split, which, in recent decades, has resulted in vicious warfare between the two factions. The long-term aim of Sunni fundamentalists has been to replace national Governments—the basis of civilisation as we know it—with a worldwide caliphate. The great leap forward for political Islam came in April 2014, with the launch of Islamic State from the Iraqi franchise of al-Qaeda—an unashamed terrorist organisation. Fuelled by religious fervour, IS swept through much of Iraq and Syria, dominating with fascist cruelty until its capital, Raqqa, was captured in October 2017.
Theocracy is of course the antithesis of democracy because it provides no scope for change of government through elections. This is well illustrated in Iran, where only six of the 17 candidates for the forthcoming presidential election have been approved to stand by the Council of Guardians. Meanwhile, IS has re-established itself under various local brands in large parts of sub-Saharan African—for example, as Boko Haram in Nigeria. Since 2015, Boko Haram has been affiliated to IS and is now part of IS in West Africa. Our particular interest is perhaps in Mali, where, as we have already heard, we now have 300 British soldiers as part of a UN peacekeeping force, and where some 500 Islamic State in greater Sahel fighters are operating.
Political Islam’s umbrella, which shields and justifies the multiple Islamic movements, is the Muslim Brotherhood. Founded in Egypt, in 1928, it came on to the world stage when it assassinated the Egyptian Prime Minister in 1949. In 1981, it assassinated President Sadat for making peace with Israel. The Muslim Brotherhood won Egypt’s parliamentary election in January 2012 and ruled Egypt, with President Morsi, until July 2013, when it was removed by the army, following a huge popular uprising after Morsi tried to introduce an Islamist constitution.
In 2015, the British Government’s own review, under Sir John Jenkins, found that the MB was
“contrary to our values… to our … interests and our national security.”
It was also implicated in the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. Yet today, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Ibrahim Munir, lives and works in London. How do the Government defend this? Will the most senior Muslim clerics be ready and able to extrude and excommunicate political Islam? A starting point would be for religious leaders around the world to agree that their role is—or should be—to guide but not to rule.
I end on an optimistic note. Recently, on 6 May, Dr Shawki Allam, the Mufti of Egypt and one of the most senior Sunni clerics in the world, issued a detailed analysis and refutation of the manner in which the text of the Koran is misused to justify violent jihad and terrorism. He concluded:
“The horrific crimes of the terrorists are in complete violation of Islamic law and norms, and the perpetuators are no way representative of the Muslim people or the religion of Islam. They are simply criminals.”
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I have two points to raise, a general one and a particular one. I welcome much of the Government’s realisation that the decades of downsizing and cuts in the defence budget have gone too far, not just in our narrow national defence interests but as our contribution to alliances and other friendly powers. Looking back as I can with personal experience of the strength of our Armed Forces to the 1950s, I can say that there is a way to go to be a global power again, whatever “global Britain” implies but, for today’s forces, the Government’s approach is welcome. It must be sustained. I am all too familiar with the aftermath of defence reviews that have never enjoyed the full funding on which they were based. I hope that, this time, that outcome can be avoided.
My particular point concerns the recent report that New Zealand, a long-standing member of the Five Eyes intelligence arrangement, seems to be out of step. The reported difficulty was that her Foreign Minister was concerned that the traditional policy of intelligence collection and sharing was being extended to a policy for the Five Eyes to be party to outspoken criticism of China on the treatment of some of its citizens. New Zealand’s Minister recognised the value to New Zealand of long-standing intelligence arrangements but, for reasons of their relations with and considerable trade with China—almost 30% in total—they seemed uneasy about the Five Eyes group being a prime platform for mounting criticism of China. I have not seen or heard yet of any changes in the FCDO’s approach.
Noble Lords will have seen and welcomed the strength of criticism of China by the UK Government over human rights and other freedoms, over Hong Kong and the Uighurs and over freedom of navigation on the high seas. These have been made clear on numerous occasions, but I was unaware of specific attributions to the Five Eyes or a Five Eyes spokesperson. Indeed, it would seem better for such collective criticism to be expressed by a wider group of nations, particularly one that included more of those nearest to China in the Far East.
Noble Lords will be aware of the birth and long history of the Five Eyes. It sprang from the 1940 visit to Bletchley Park by United States code breakers before it had even entered the war. Progressively, the link of language and common interests brought Canada in 1948 and Australia and New Zealand in 1956 into this group. Over the decades, and regardless of party-political viewpoints, the arrangement has continued and prospered in the collective interest of all. Modern digital, space and cyber domains have extended the coverage and value of this long-standing and successful sharing of intelligence in its many forms and from many sources. It would be of very serious concern to this country if a commitment maintained for so many years were to be fractured.
I hope that the reservations expressed by New Zealand will not materialise into any break in the value and historic strength of such an important contribution to national security. It seems a pity that those New Zealand reservations were expressed so publicly. One wonders whether they had been expressed privately but without being heeded beforehand. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that the Five Eyes arrangements will continue as before and for many years to come.
Lord Sheikh (Con) [V]
My Lords, Her Majesty’s gracious Speech made clear this Government’s commitment to defence and security, upholding human rights, and reducing poverty across the world. I am pleased to note that the Government will be taking forward the biggest increase in defence spending in 30 years, which will help to promote global peace and stability.
I am very concerned with the situation in Yemen, which has been called the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. Last Monday, I held a virtual meeting with the ambassadors of Yemen and the UAE to discuss how we can best support the country. What are the Government doing to support the peace process in Yemen? Can humanitarian aid to that country be continued as much as possible? I would like to see the aid budget restored to 0.7% as soon as possible. Will my noble friend comment on when the Government plan to reassess this commitment?
I am very interested in the well-being of our Armed Forces and I welcome the announcement in the gracious Speech to provide national insurance contribution relief for employers of veterans. This will help to support those who have already given so much to this country and is a step towards realising the Government’s commitment to make the UK the best place in the world to be a veteran. Our Armed Forces have played a significant role in shaping our country’s history. I pay tribute to the Muslims who have been an important part of our past. Unfortunately, the contribution of Muslims to our Armed Forces is not widely acknowledged and has been historically undervalued. In World War I, 2.5 million Muslims supported the allied forces with dignity and honour. In World War II, this increased to 5.5 million Muslims. Unfortunately, some Muslims paid the ultimate price in both wars.
I am the founder and chairman of the National Muslim War Memorial Trust, which is committed to recognising the contribution of Muslims to Britain’s Armed Forces, including the erection of a war memorial on a prominent site in central London. When I initially conceived the idea of setting up the charity, I wrote to my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and General Sir Nick Carter. They were both extremely supportive of the trust, and the support which I received from the Muslim community was very encouraging. The charity has now been established and, with my fellow trustee, my noble friend Lord Lexden, I have written to the Prime Minister and other Ministers regarding our initiative and hope to receive their support soon. I have also written to my noble friends Lady Goldie and Lord Ahmad. Can my noble friend Lord Ahmad confirm, in his closing remarks, if he is willing to support us and what support he may be able to give?
Our second objective is educational work. This will help to bring communities together and foster harmony between different groups. One of the key reasons why we set up the charity is to combat Islamophobia. People should realise the sacrifices Muslims have made to keep the union jack flying. Telling and building the story of their heroic service will help to build a better Britain for everyone. We are concerned about the findings of the report by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. My fellow trustee Major General Charles Fattorini had discussions with the commission and we are actively looking at ways to support the report’s recommendations.
I also spoke to the Royal British Legion recently. It commends our efforts, and we look forward to working with it to explore ways in which we can be partners and support each other.
I have already referred to the concession for veterans in the Queen’s Speech. I am hopeful that our charity will help to recognise the contribution of Muslim veterans and supplement the measures
“to address racial and ethnic disparities”
that were announced in the gracious Speech.
Finally, I, like many other Muslims across the world, was disturbed by the Israeli attack on the al-Aqsa mosque. To us Muslims, that mosque is the third holiest place in the world. I have visited it three times and prayed at it. It is sacred, and I believe that what has happened is sacrilege. Can my noble friend the Minister comment on what happened and perhaps try to ensure that it does not happen again?
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-chair of the APPG for the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
The island of Cyprus has been divided for over half a century. Almost since it became divided, there have been many attempts at reunification. The last full-dress attempt to find a solution and reunite the island, on the basis of a bizonal, bicommunal federation, failed dramatically at the last moment in Crans-Montana in 2017.
Despite this setback, the UN Secretary-General felt able to say this at the time:
“I continue to hold out hope that a durable settlement to the Cyprus problem can be achieved … I have continually emphasized that natural resources in and around Cyprus constitute a strong incentive for a mutually acceptable and durable solution.”
Much has happened since then, none of it obviously helpful or encouraging. The eastern Mediterranean has become significantly more turbulent, more violent and less stable. Turkish foreign policy has become increasingly erratic, unpredictable and alienating to many of its allies and friends. The prospect of the successful exploitation of the oil and gas reserves around the island has receded. Turkey has taken an increasingly tough and even threatening posture over exploration and extraction. The Greek Cypriots resolutely ignore or reject asset-sharing proposals put forward by the Turkish Cypriots. Of course, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus has a new president in Ersin Tatar. Mr Tatar was elected on an explicit platform of partition and an explicit rejection of the long-standing basis of all previous attempts at settlement: a bizonal, bicommunal federation. It is not at all surprising that this view should now emerge as a political force in Northern Cyprus.
It is often said that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting something different to happen is a definition of madness. Turkish Cypriots have been doing the same thing over and over again for half a century, and nothing different has happened. Mr Tatar and the people of Northern Cyprus think that this is an obviously unproductive approach and formally proposed partition at the UN-sponsored meeting in Geneva three weeks ago. This was rejected by the Greek Cypriots, perhaps unsurprisingly. Despite all this, the UN Secretary-General said after the Geneva meeting:
“I do not give up. My agenda is very simple. My agenda is strictly to fight for the security and well-being of the Cypriots, of the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots, that deserve to live in peace and prosperity together.”
As things stand, Turkish Cypriots emphatically do not live in prosperity and the two communities do not live together in any meaningful way. However, more UN-sponsored talks have been proposed. It is admirable that the UN has not given up; I know that Her Majesty’s Government have not given up either and remain deeply concerned.
I believe that both the United Nations and this Government are driven by the ever more urgent need for regional stability, as well as by an ever more urgent need for justice for Turkish Cypriots, who, through no fault of their own, have effectively been shut off from the world for more than half a century. They live under severe and damaging embargos. Their economy lags behind in the absence of investment and development capital. Infrastructure is not renewed. Dependence on the Turkish lira worsens their economic position even further. They also now live with the prospect of the extinction of their distinctive Turkish Cypriot culture under the pressure of Turkish immigration, funding and influence. I ask the Government to continue to make every effort to keep the talks alive and, in particular, to impress on all sides the need for significant compromise.
In the meantime, can the Government consider removing the requirement that all passengers travelling from London to Ercan in Northern Cyprus deplane with all their baggage to undergo security checks in Turkey? We imposed that restriction, and we could lift it ourselves without reference to anyone else. I know from conversations with President Tatar that his Administration would comply with any conditions Her Majesty’s Government might have. This would not solve the problem, of course, but it would bring some economic relief to the north and demonstrate our willingness to provide practical help. I commend it to the Minister.
Baroness Helic (Con) [V]
My Lords, the western Balkans is a microcosm of the challenges that we and our allies face globally and a significant test of our capacity to meet them. The current outlook is not good. I welcome the fact that the strategic review identified Russia as our “most acute direct threat” and China as a serious systemic challenger. But both countries are successfully developing their economic and political influence in the Balkans, while we and our allies treat the region as being of lesser importance.
China’s involvement can be seen in: investment in factories in Serbia which rain red dust on to surrounding villages; a $1 billion loan from a Chinese bank to pay a Chinese company to build a highway in Montenegro, which the country now cannot repay; co-operation over surveillance technology; tie-ups between Chinese and local universities; and the active cultivation of the next generation across the region.
Russia, meanwhile, has played the spoiler role for years. It is supporting and spreading disinformation and propaganda, propping up nationalists and demagogues and encouraging paramilitaries. It has backed a coup attempt in Montenegro, sponsored violence in northern Macedonia and sent far-right biker gangs to Bosnia—the same ones that played an active role in the invasion and occupation of Ukraine. It provides oxygen to the secessionists.
For many politicians in the Balkans, Moscow and Beijing make attractive sponsors. Chinese loans and Russian funds do not come with democratic checks and balances. Chinese and Russian media do not ask difficult questions, so long as you stick to the right script. Chinese and Russian leaders do not push for strong institutions and political reforms, so long as you follow their lead.
There has been a real backwards slide since the mid-2000s. The progress that was being made across the region has, in many cases, halted. In Bosnia-Herzegovina, the leader of the smaller entity, the so-called Republika Srpska, openly talks of secession and threatens to mobilise his own army. Where is the condemnation? Where are the sanctions on people who deliberately undermine the Dayton agreement? Our sanctions regime includes mechanisms to protect the peace agreement and defend the sovereignty of the country. We have the legal power, but we do not use it. Serbia is rearming, and we are withdrawing. We no longer participate in EUFOR, the peacekeeping force in Bosnia. Our withdrawal was not a requirement of Brexit—Chile is a member.
Even on the great matter of the moment—the pandemic—our response appears enfeebled. China and Russia have exploited vaccine diplomacy to the full; the Serbian president kissed the Chinese flag when a planeload of medical supplies arrived. Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo, Montenegro and northern Macedonia all have populations of less than 3.5 million. It should be relatively easy to step in and provide assistance to the people and countries on our doorstep. It would be a powerful reminder that the future is not automatically with China or Russia and that democracies make the strongest partners.
It can be tempting to think of the Balkans as a small region far away—someone else’s problem. But what happens in the Balkans does not stay in the Balkans. Stability and good government in the region are crucial if we are to stop trafficking of arms, drugs or people. They are crucial for our health security; weak health systems place us all at risk. They are crucial if we are to tackle climate change; the five most polluted cities in Europe last year were Skopje, Sofia, Belgrade, Pristina and Sarajevo. If we are really serious about encouraging an open international order, then letting China, Russia and far-right nationalism sink ever-deeper roots in Europe is to fail before we have begun.
In the western Balkans, we see how systemic competition will work across the world, how authoritarian ideas gain a foothold and then spread, how Russia and China are a destabilising and competing influence, and how they push at boundaries. What once seemed far-fetched becomes possible, then plausible, then suddenly it is in the rear-view mirror. Countries which should be on the path to prosperity risk instead becoming permanent centres of, and exporters of, instability in our own back yard.
There is a solution. With co-ordinated vision and action from NATO and the EU, we can help the people of the region to set the Balkans back on the right path. We must put our values of democracy, human rights and transparency up front. We cannot win on our adversaries’ terms. We must push for reforms and for stronger democratic institutions. We must support civil society and tackle corruption. Above all, we must staunchly resist dangerous ideas of border changes, genocide denial, and ethnic nationalism as a replacement for true democracy, wherever and whenever they surface. We must offer rewards and tangible benefits for progress, and meaningful sanctions for any backwards steps.
An effective strategy, co-ordinated with our allies, to counter the growing Russian and Chinese influence, the revival of nationalism and the increasing risk of conflict in the region is long overdue. History shows that if we do not attempt this now, on terms of our choosing, events will force our hand and require much more costly and complex interventions in the future.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, in addressing a few issues of defence and foreign policy, I remind the House of my interests recorded in the register. However, one interest is not registered. Two years ago this month, my godson, Conor McDowell, a 24 year-old first lieutenant in the US Marine Corps, was killed protecting his men in a military vehicle rollover accident at Camp Pendleton in San Diego. He was an only child and about to become engaged to Kathleen, the love of his life. As a result of unrelenting pressure from his parents and some Members of the House and Senate, an independent investigation was initiated by two powerful House committees, exonerating him of any blame but revealing an astonishing death rate of US military personnel in training. A sub-committee of the House is currently conducting a hearing on learning from and preventing future training mishaps. When I asked HMG for their figures, the Written Answer showed that the number of deaths and injuries of our military personnel was also massively greater in training and exercises than in combat duty. Given the US response to its figures and the stated concern of the Minister for the welfare of our service personnel, will Her Majesty’s Government institute an independent study to learn from and prevent future training mishaps for our military?
It was said in this debate that what happened in the pandemic was unexpected, but this is not true. Reports commissioned by the Government warned that a pandemic was inevitable and advised what needed to be done, but the advice was not taken. The same was true for Northern Ireland and Israel/Palestine. For years before the onset of the Troubles there were warnings about leaving the situation to fester. It took 30 years of destruction before the Good Friday agreement brought it to an end. There were three strands to the negotiations, addressing three sets of relationships, and three sets of institutions emerged: the Northern Ireland power-sharing Assembly, the north-south bodies, and the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference.
The British and Irish Governments and the European Union repeatedly proclaimed that they supported the Good Friday/Belfast agreement, but the strand 3 British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference did not meet for a decade so, when Brexit appeared on the scene, there was no longer any serious relationship between the two Governments at a senior level. The European Union did not so much neglect as disrupt the relationships. It maintained its support for strand 2—the north-south cross-border work—but stood in the way of strand 3 negotiations, with Monsieur Barnier insisting that he spoke for Ireland. He did not; he spoke for the EU, and when the EU addressed anything, its focus was the interests of the nationalist community, as represented in strand 2 of the agreement, but not the interests of the unionist community, thus disrupting strand 1 of the agreement.
Post Brexit, relationships with the EU are a very contentious foreign policy issue, and I see little recognition by HMG or the EU that they understand the complex and variable geometry of the Good Friday agreement. I plead with Her Majesty’s Government to address this complexity before the United Kingdom itself is pulled apart by London failing to heed the warnings.
Similarly, there is nothing surprising about the mounting violence in Israel/Palestine. My friend Yair Lapid, who is currently trying to put together a new coalition Government in Israel, this week said:
“We are on the edge of the abyss. We knew it was coming. We have seen this disintegration coming”.
The disintegration of which he spoke is what makes this violence different from before, because now Arab Israelis have risen up against their Jewish-Israeli neighbours. It is not just Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank. Lapid appealed for the country to come together: good Israeli citizens, Jews and Arabs, ultra-Orthodox, religious and secular. He said:
“We all believe in the same thing, that violence cannot win, we will not let it win”.
I remember using such words myself as the Alliance leader in Northern Ireland. I wanted to believe that the silent majority of peace-loving people on all sides could work together and marginalise the men of violence, as we called them. Eventually, we had to negotiate a deal.
Prime Minister Netanyahu, along with President Trump, thought that they could do a deal with the leaders of the front-line Arab states to marginalise the Palestinians. But I remember an Egyptian Minister in Cairo telling me many years ago: “The Government walk on one side of the street, but the people walk on the other side”. Agreements with authoritarian Arab leaders will not carry the Arab street. We who love our brothers and sisters in Israel/Palestine must warn them all as critical friends that marginalisation, discrimination and the use of force will not solve their problems.
My unionist fellow countrymen would not listen to my warning many years ago and some of them still have their fingers in their ears, even as the union slips away from them. If Israel focuses on the argument of force, it may be in the short-term interests of Mr Netanyahu’s aspirations for government, but it will not be in the interests of his children and grandchildren.
Do Her Majesty’s Government accept that decades of occupation of the Palestinian territories have poisoned the well and contributed to the current violence? At what point will Her Majesty’s Government consider that the occupation had become after decades a de facto annexation?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (Non-Afl)
My Lords, your Lordships will be happy to hear that, in this debate on foreign affairs and defence, I propose to spend most of my allotted five minutes talking about Islam. I start by looking overseas, where the Uighur Muslims are being brutally treated by the Chinese, as are the Rohingya by Buddhist Burma, but the general picture is of a jihad advancing across the planet through west Africa, Mozambique, Syria, Ethiopia, Turkey and Nagorno-Karabakh. Coming closer to home, the French, the Swedes and the Austrians are waking up to the extent and effect of Muslim expansion in their societies. But if a large number of Written and Oral Questions from me to the Government over the last 12 years are anything to go by, Her Majesty’s Government are determined to ignore all this and to turn a blind eye to what is happening in this country, which brings me to our defence.
The Government’s central belief is that Islam is a religion of peace, of which Islamism is an aberration. In this they misunderstand Islam, which requires its followers to obey the Koran and to follow what Muhammad did and said. There is no separation of powers in Islam, as we know it—no division between parliament, Executive and legislature; it is a complete way of life. But the Koran contains a large number of verses which instruct Muslims to kill the Kaffir, or non-Muslims, and not to mingle with them. I have time to share only one of the former with your Lordships, verse 9.5:
“Kill the unbelievers, capture and besiege them and lie in wait for them in ambush”.
There are many such verses, which noble Lords can read for themselves, such as verses 4.56, 4.74, 8.12, 8.39, 8.60 and 47.4. As to not mingling or making friends with the rest of us, I give your Lordships verse 5.51, generally translated as:
“Oh ye who believe, take not the Jews and Christians for your friends. They are but friends and protectors to each other and he amongst you who turns to them is one of them”.
We must not forget that our Muslim population is growing 10 times faster than the rest of us so that, in 10 years’ time, on current trends, at least 10 of our local authorities will have Muslim majorities, including Birmingham.
To all this the Government intone that all such verses are capable of peaceful interpretation and that our Islamists have got it wrong. I submit—and this is my most important point—that, even if that were true, our Islamists can and do justify their evil deeds by reference to those verses.
Take, for example, the murderers of Drummer Rigby, in Woolwich, in 2013, who gave a memo to bystanders in which they quoted no fewer than 22 verses of the Koran, which justified their atrocity. It was produced in court at their trial, stained in Drummer Rigby’s blood. I have a colour photocopy here.
In conclusion, what could the Government do? First, they could require that all teaching in our mosques and madrassas is in English, so that we begin to understand what version of Islam is being taught to our Muslims and their children. Secondly, they could send home to their countries of origin all our imams who cannot speak English. The Government say that our immigration procedures weed them out on arrival, but they do not—not by a long chalk.
I look forward to the Minister’s reply to these suggestions. I hope that he does not tell me that the Government do not get involved in religions because, as I have mentioned, Islam is not only a religion, but a legal and political system, much of which is now dedicated to forming a world caliphate of which we will be part.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
My Lords, it is always interesting to follow the noble Lord.
In her gracious Speech, Her Majesty said:
“My Government will uphold human rights and democracy across the world.”
I will address that in the context of Israel and Palestine, on which issue I resigned from the Cabinet nearly seven years ago. I saw then, at the heart of government, what we see no—: our Government failing to implement their own stated policy.
We have a policy. We have a policy of a two-state solution, but we do not recognise Palestine as a state. Ministers refuse even to use its name. We have a policy of a peace process, but no appetite to initiate or prioritise one. We have a policy that settlement-building is illegal and contrary to international law, yet there is no consequence when, every year, more and more settlers supported by the Israeli Government and diaspora groups occupy more land in Palestine. We do nothing to deter Israel from expanding settlements, forced evictions and home demolitions. This is ethnic cleansing and it is denying the reality that the state of Palestine even exists.
Our policy is that east Jerusalem is an integral part of a future Palestinian state, yet we do nothing as extremists barge into homes, terrorising Palestinian families who have lived there for generations. Our policy is to defend human rights, but no action follows as hundreds of Palestinian children every year are arrested, mistreated and incarcerated. Our policy is to support international accountability and fund the International Criminal Court, but we oppose the ICC’s investigations into war crimes in Palestine. Each time that we fail to implement our own policy, we send out the message to an ever-extremist right-wing Israeli Government that there will be no cost of consequences for their treatment of the Palestinians. This total impunity is feeding Israel’s prolific rise in far-right extremism, leaving a society fighting for its soul.
Often, when we look at periods in history that were overwhelmingly unjust and clearly unfair and, in retrospect, see appalling human rights abuses and cruelty, we rationalise a lack of action at the time by saying that we would have done more, if only we knew then what we know now. I want to put on record what we know now, so that, in future generations, there will be no doubt that we knew.
We know about the dispossessions in Sheikh Jarrah, the chants of “Death to Arabs” in Jerusalem, the attacks on worshippers in Al-Aqsa and the attacks outside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. We know that, in the West Bank, Palestinians and Israeli settlers live side by side, the former legally, but under military law, without the most basic of utilities, the latter, 630,000 strong and growing, illegally present yet governed by civilian law and living in relative luxury. These two peoples are in the same land, but with differing legal systems and even separate roads to the same place, so we know, as it is documented by Human Rights Watch, that the threshold for the international war crime of apartheid and persecution has been passed.
We know that generations have existed under a blockade, have never left Gaza—an area the size of the Isle of Wight—and drink water that the World Health Organization says is not even fit for animals. We know that mid-pandemic, Gaza’s only coronavirus testing lab was damaged by Israeli army bombing. We know of the deliberate targeting of journalists, including the bombing of the AP building, where, as US Secretary of State Blinken said, there was no evidence of Hamas operations. We know that a female journalist who has worked for Channel 4 was attacked and had her hijab ripped off by Israeli soldiers. We know, as it was reported by Mark Stone of Sky News, of entirely unnecessary, provocative behaviour by Israeli police and military yesterday at Damascus Gate, with stun grenades thrown at peaceful groups of Palestinians, and at Bethlehem, where volleys of tear gas were used.
We know from Amnesty International of the rising death toll in Gaza, with entire families wiped out in attacks that will be tried as war crimes. We know from the UN of the mounting destruction by Israeli strikes of homes, hospitals, libraries and charities, and we know about the incitement of hatred on official Israeli government platforms, only this week posting on Twitter verses from the Koran over a photo of bombs dropping on Gaza in an offensive attempt to argue that Palestinian destruction was ordained in Islam. We know that over the past week Israeli soldiers have shot dead three more Palestinian children in the West Bank. We know that there will be zero accountability for this appalling violence.
Our silence in the face of this makes our position, as I said when I resigned in 2014, morally indefensible. I ask the Government to acknowledge that they know. We all know. I urge the Government to stop responding to narrow political interests and to listen to the Israelis and Palestinians who stand together to call for an end to occupation, to Israeli Jewish human rights organisations, such as B’Tselem, and to the Israeli ex-soldiers who are breaking their silence and in the face of horrendous abuse continue to speak the truth and to point out how there is no military solution. I urge noble Lords across the House to watch the Bafta-winning film “The Present” by Farah Nablusi, which in 20 minutes of heart-breaking storytelling lays bare the daily aggression of occupation and checkpoints. Will my noble friend say what the Government can say from that Dispatch Box to Palestinians who want occupation to end? How do we ensure that our policy of the two-state solution is not a simple fig-leaf policy to hide inaction but a reality for the people of Israel and Palestine?
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Austin of Dudley, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to be able to contribute to this important debate on the gracious Speech and to follow my noble friend, who no one can deny made a very powerful speech. While I may not agree with everything she said, she certainly has been entirely consistent in her views for many years and continues to be a powerful advocate. Equally, I join others in congratulating my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister on a quite remarkable maiden speech. There is little doubt that it demonstrated the contribution that he will be able to make in this place in future.
In my brief time, I want to comment on the integrated review. The one thing we have not been short of in recent months is a series of announcements from defence. We have had the integrated operating concept, the integrated review, a Command Paper, the defence and security industrial strategy, and last week saw the publication of Reserve Forces Review 2030. I should declare my interest as the chairman of that review, something I will return to shortly. Collectively, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, they underline the UK’s clear determination to maintain the international rules-based order, and I am impressed.
As my noble friend Lady Goldie said in her opening remarks, the one thing we have now clearly defined is that we will deliver this through two means. The first is consciously trying to maintain readiness. That is always easier said than done; in the past we have sometimes maintained things at readiness because we can, as opposed to because we should. The second is having a forward presence. In my time as a Defence Minister, the one thing I learnt as I travelled the world seeing our allies was that they all felt that the contributions we made through training were some of the best in the world. The problem was that we were there one day but gone the next. The forward basing of HMS “Montrose” in Bahrain and the recent deployment of the OPV to Gibraltar is already a demonstration of that forward presence. I am particularly pleased to see the OPV moving to Gibraltar, because of our interest now in the Gulf of Guinea and our oil investments in Senegal.
As we move forward, we will have more legislation: the Armed Forces Bill. This will be the fourth time I have been involved in an Armed Forces Bill; last time I took it through the other House as Minister. I am pleased we will finally enshrine the Armed Forces covenant in law. This is something we discussed doing at length last time but, in all honesty, we enshrined in law only the requirement for the Secretary of State to make a report to Parliament each year. That is not to undermine the progress that has been made when it comes to supporting our service families and veterans, be that the investment in the pupil premium or Forces Help to Buy, or indeed the creation of the Veterans’ Gateway, a one-stop shop where veterans can get the support they need. I feel that the potential move to offer national insurance breaks for employing veterans is another step in the right direction.
On the Reserve Forces Review 2030, I am sometimes frustrated in this place when we talk, for example, of an Army of 72,000. We have an Army not of 72,000 but of over 100,000. We have a Regular Army of 72,000, but that is to diminish the contributions that reserves make on a daily basis. We still seem to think that we have a contingent reserve, almost the Territorial Army of the 1980s, which trains only at weekends and is there at times of crisis in case we need it as a third or fourth echelon. That is not a reflection of the modern reserve. Only this morning I was in the Ministry of Defence in my other life as Brigadier Lancaster, making a contribution as almost an auxiliary, contributing to defence on a daily basis. This is the reality of the modern reserve.
The Reserve Forces Review 2030 is all about accessing skills from the civilian sector. As we move to five domains—space and cyber in addition to land, air and sea—some skills are better held in the civilian space, because they can maintain their currency. We must create a system in which we can access those skills, and this is exactly what the Reserve Forces Review 2030 is trying to do. I hope that in future it will have the support of your Lordships’ House.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, when a few years ago I was asked to lead on defence from these Benches, I was told that defence and foreign affairs were easy, as one rarely had contentious Bills in your Lordships’ House. However, when Harold Macmillan was asked the greatest challenges for a statesman, he replied, “Events, dear boy, events.” Knowing how to respond is a key skill for leaders.
Today I will talk about the very recent events in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, while declaring that I am president of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel. I deeply regret the loss of life caused by the military action against Hamas, but also condemn the 3,750 rockets launched in the last few days against Israeli citizens, Jew and Arab alike. I am appalled by the street violence in Israel, which has affected Israel’s citizens—again, Jew and Arab alike. It is utterly shameful and is most certainly not a Jewish way to respond to any situation. I decry those who allow these tensions to develop in this way. We must call on political and communal leaders to take whatever action is needed to stop it and to re-educate people in the ways of coexistence.
But what, in this debate, are we calling on our Government to do? The UK is, in my view, in a unique position in that, unlike the United States, it is not clearly seen as biased to one side. We in the UK must call for an immediate ceasefire and not just a short-term truce, as that would be seen as an opportunity for Iran to replenish Hamas’s and Islamic Jihad’s stocks of rockets, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Polak, earlier in this debate. Action is needed to stop the rockets, and to stop the retaliation. At least that will stop the needless slaughter, both intended and unintended.
There is, again, talk of the creation of a state of Palestine, with which I have every sympathy. I believe it would, handled correctly, help both sides, but I ask our Government to help create a stable state, which looks difficult to build on with the main players being President Abbas or the Palestinian Authority and Hamas and Islamic Jihad. There are many in Israel and among its friends in the diaspora who want such a state; however, Israel must feel assured that it is not creating a belligerent enemy on its borders. That surely must be possible.
The dreadful events are happening just when it seemed, at last, that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s long reign as Prime Minister was going to come to an end, to be replaced by a rainbow coalition of right, centre, left, and even including an Arab party. Once calm is restored, one expects Israel’s President, under its laws, to call upon Yair Lapid, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Alderdice, to form a Government. If that happens, the UK must be there offering support and advice. I hope that support and advice will also come from Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, Bahrain and Sudan. My noble friend painted a very bleak picture and I know that he will be readily able to give people such as Yair Lapid, if he leads the Israeli Government, advice and assistance on coexistence.
The most reverend Primate referred to Saint Augustine, who said, basically, “not yet”. We must not defer action, as has happened in the past. A very vivid picture has been painted of the plight of Palestinians, and quite rightly so, but very few people remember that this is a very complex situation in the Middle East. Where is the reference to the 800,000 Jews who fled Arab lands, the hundreds of thousands who lived in Iraq and Syria and are no longer there at all? This is not a simplistic situation; it is a movement of populations, and both sides have suffered. Now is the time to take a breath and try to bring these people together in coexistence, not in confrontation.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, there are many war-torn countries in the world that require urgent attention from the United Kingdom and the international organisations to which we belong but, as we have heard yet again from the many splendid speeches today, there are also many parts of the world suffering the consequences of natural disasters—hurricanes, floods, mudslides, volcanic eruptions and so on. As we now understand, with our focus on climate change and preparations for COP 26, some of the poorest countries undeservedly bear the brunt of the most severe consequences of climate change. Let us take Central America as an example.
Total carbon emissions from the seven countries of Central America are 0.1%, yet they have endured the increasing frequency of disasters brought about by climate change—most recently, Hurricanes Eta and Iota, which devastated Central America, Honduras most of all. Also affected are countries in South America. I hope the United Kingdom will support Honduras and its need for international help, with its plan for reconstruction and sustainable development.
I also hope that both the G7 agenda and the COP 26 discussions can find a suitable solution to redress the balance between some of the world’s poorest countries and lowest emitters and those developed countries that are among the highest emitters. A net zero target has to be part of that and a method of monitoring compliance. Therefore, I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that Glasgow will have to improve on Paris—not forgetting, of course, that all these dire climate consequences are exaggerated by the Covid pandemic.
In my 30-plus years as a Member of your Lordships’ House, I have spoken in Queen’s Speech debates many times—often a lone voice on a theme relating to Latin America. I have emphasised our historic and cultural links with those countries, from Mexico in North America, through central and South America, down to the tip of Patagonia. After all, for so long, this was the new world for us old Europeans. In doing so, I have endeavoured to show the importance of that region, the vitality of the young populations, the good will for the United Kingdom and the huge trade potential. However, sadly, the integrated review makes very inadequate reference to Latin America.
Since the last Queen’s Speech debate in 2019, I have been appointed a voluntary trade envoy to Panama, Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic. There are many interesting and hopeful signs of increasing and improving reciprocal trade and investment opportunities. My plea is for more joined-up government. There is little point in the new Department for International Trade, trade commissioners, trade envoys and even Ministers working away and creating opportunities when onerous visa requirements and flight connectivity make it difficult, if not impossible, to move on.
Finally, time does not allow me to do more than mention the importance of soft power. In this context, I welcome and appreciate the contribution of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury earlier. Government support for the BBC, the British Council and our world-famous orchestras, ballet companies and museums remains vital. However, within our Parliament, the Government should not forget the work of the British group of the IPU, the CPA and the parliamentary delegation to the Council of Europe—all of which I have worked with—and the many other ways in which Parliament can better understand, influence and contribute to government work and aims in international relations.
In my last seconds, I add my congratulations to those offered to my noble friend on his excellent maiden speech earlier.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, one of my earliest introductions to the workings of the British Government came from Anthony Sampson’s Anatomy of Britain in the early 1960s. In it, he argued that one of the main functions of the FCO—as it then was—was contingency planning. I have to assume that this continues, and my topic today therefore concerns what the UK Government’s plans might be if and when China attempts a serious onslaught against Taiwan and, secondly, if and when the Taliban gain power in Afghanistan and start wholesale repression of women’s rights.
On the former, China has made it abundantly clear that incorporating Taiwan as part of the mainland is its intention—indeed, its primary foreign policy objective. The integrated review talks about competition, co-operation and counteraction against China’s policies, with a heavy emphasis on trade. However, astonishingly, it does not even mention Taiwan. China might be forgiven for not taking the threat of counteraction and critical partnership all that seriously when it is underpinned with an ever-increasing number of trade deals. Obviously, the issue of Taiwan is not the only worry in relation to what China will do next. The whole Indo-Pacific tilt, a major plank of the integrated review, will be affected by its actions in the coming decade.
What measures are being discussed to draw up serious sanctions against China on the part of not only the UK but, perhaps, all those democracies in the Indo-Pacific region, which would include the USA? Will our partners in the region be content to see international shipping disrupted by China, or islands in the South China Sea and land belonging to democratic nations bought up, bit by bit, to further China’s imperial vision? Will China’s belt and road initiatives interfere with free trade agreements with and beyond the region? Are nations stretching from New Zealand to the US prepared to co-ordinate robust action and, if so, is China aware of the consequences of its actions?
On Afghanistan, I have to thank the Minister for meeting some of us to hear our concerns. We were, and are, most grateful. It seems likely that the Taliban will, if not govern in the future, be a major part of any new Government. Current Taliban and other terrorist groups’ outrages in Afghanistan point to the future. Women’s rights and the education of girls appear to be the focus of their attacks. Some say that Afghanistan is not the country it was over 20 years ago, as people have gained a taste for democracy and hugely courageous women have taken up public office. Optimists argue that this will not be easily conceded but, as we know, Taliban violence knows few bounds and it has to be assumed that decades of human rights, education and entrepreneurial programmes could be destroyed within months. What key elements of Afghanistan’s eager embrace of democratic institutions in the last two decades will the UK Government, together with their partners, seek to maintain, and by what means? What do HMG think will be possible in a worst-case scenario and what plans do they have to set up emergency programmes, however minimal these might be?
A very large number of NGOs have worked tirelessly in Afghanistan to assist the democratic process. However, while many will fear to remain, some will. Some are already thinking of what programmes can be run without incurring the wrath of the Taliban: projects such as technical connectivity, online learning, the encouragement of homecrafts, local manufacturing and the like. Are Her Majesty’s Government fully aware of these possibilities and are they planning to fund such enterprises?
I am sure that Members of this House would welcome an update from the Minister on the progress of the Doha talks, with Pakistan’s involvement, and what contingency plans there might be if the talks fail. A return to civil war in Afghanistan may well follow the departure of US and UK troops. The battlefield will then be open to the Taliban and other non-democratic forces, which could destabilise not only Afghanistan’s immediate neighbours but the entire Indo-Pacific region.
The troop withdrawals are understandable but military resources must be rapidly replaced by financial resources—resources which are not subject to severe cuts. Nothing is ever as good as it promises to be, or as bad, but if sovereignty now stands alongside security and prosperity as core UK interests, the responsibly to promote and protect democracy in its many different forms comes with the territory.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the gracious Speech. My comments will be on global Britain, specifically the Indo-Pacific tilt. My own background is that I have lived and worked in India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, and I know the rest of ASEAN quite well. I will specifically address Sri Lanka, and I declare an interest as joint chair of the all-party group.
Today in Sri Lanka, there is huge tension over the UNHCR’s report on alleged war crimes by the Sri Lankan armed forces, and the UK in its role as chair of the Core Group—the USA having pulled out, as it sees no point in it. The war of 2009 was not some minor insurrection, so judgment must be made on the basis of the law of armed conflict, known as the international humanitarian law. It was a war between a democratically elected Government and probably the world’s most evil terrorists, who killed two presidents, Ministers, civilians in their thousands and the most moderate Tamil leaders. It was a war partially conducted from Camden in London, at the Tamil Tigers’ international HQ, led by Anton Balasingham—a UK citizen. Millions were raised illegally here on the ground in this country. His wife, Adele, was fighting in Sri Lanka and was closely involved in recruiting over 5,000 child soldiers, as stated by UNICEF. This is a war crime by any yardstick.
Charges by the UN start with the Darusman report, from three human rights lawyers who never visited Sri Lanka. Worse still, they claimed that at least 40,000 civilians were killed. But all the sources of evidence are to be hidden for 20 years. Is this robust evidence? Why the secrecy?
The second UN report, from OISL, is largely based on the first, Darusman. I spent three years looking at all the sources, which I have listed in my book, Sri Lanka: Paradise Lost; Paradise Regained. I have given a copy to my noble friend; I do not know whether he has received it, because he has not yet told me. The claim is of Tamil genocide, but my firm conclusion is that there were a maximum of 6,000 to 7,000 deaths. My evidence is verified—there was no genocide. My evidence comes from sources such as US Ambassador Blake, the UN in-country team, the census done after the war by the Tamils, University Teachers for Human Rights, the UK’s own expert military attaché in the field and many others, all of whom confirm the figure of 6,000 to 7,000. But just recently, Her Majesty’s Government stated in a letter sent to me from the MoD on 25 March, and in another from the FCO, that
“despatches written by Lieutenant Colonel Gash … reported on isolated information … from a number of different sources … without offering any independent verification of this information. As such, they cannot be considered an evidenced-based assessment”.
One wonders why in heaven the dispatches I have—48 pages of what has been produced—are so heavily redacted if they are so useless. In my judgment, that redaction should be removed forthwith.
It is wonderful—not only is our military attaché cast aside and my evidence seemingly cast aside but it goes on. I say to my noble friend: read the Paranagama commission report, which had some of the UK’s finest human rights lawyers as advisers—namely Sir Desmond de Silva, Sir Geoffrey Nice and others. Their eminent view on Darusman was that it was of no value to a court seeking to establish the truth because the reports are based on anonymous sources. There are others on top of this; there is the US military attaché. All report that the Sri Lankan army behaved appropriately under the leadership of General Shavendra Silva. OISL’s view on the camp of 200,000 was that it was a quasi-concentration camp. How so, when the Red Cross was there from day one? Additionally, the Tamil MPs who visited it said a huge thank you to the Sri Lankan Government for the way the Tamils were looked after.
I turn briefly to the way forward. Truth and reconciliation are a huge challenge, but the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury visited in 2019 and said that Sri Lanka was making real progress. Our colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, says from the Legatum Institute that Sri Lanka has done extremely well over the last decade. I urge the Minister to work with Sri Lanka on implementing the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission and the Paranagama report to establish a truth and reconciliation committee. If the UK chooses to dictate, then let me be clear: there is a clear risk to our Indo-Pacific strategy on Sri Lanka. It will be forced back to rely on China, thereby threatening the sea lanes and the dissident Tamils setting up an independent state. Is this really a way to say thank you to a country whose people helped us in two world wars and whose Government accepted and helped our Government over the Falklands vote in the United Nations?
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, Her Majesty the Queen said in her gracious Speech in the House of Lords on 11 May 2021:
“My Government will continue to provide aid where it has the greatest impact on reducing poverty and alleviating human suffering. My Government will uphold human rights and democracy across the world.”
As Her Majesty was making this speech, Palestinians were under intense bombardment and shelling by Israeli forces for the third day running, following the eviction of Palestinian families in east Jerusalem in early May, when tensions flared up.
On 8 May, the BBC reported that at least 163 Palestinian civilians and six Israeli police officers had been hurt in clashes in Jerusalem. Most were injured at the al-Aqsa mosque, where Israeli police fired rubber bullets and stun grenades at peaceful worshippers. Since then, the violence has intensified, with bombardment of the Gaza Strip by Israeli forces killing hundreds of Palestinians—men, women and children—injuring many more and displacing over 58,000 people. These attacks have not spared multistorey residential blocks, refugee camps and media outlets. Regrettably, more lives were lost with Hamas firing rockets into Israel.
Israel is at full-scale war with one of the world’s poorest and most impoverished countries—it has no military, bomb shelters or anywhere to hide. Israel has blocked Gaza from the outside world by land, sea and air. The World Health Organization has documented 91 attacks, as of 17 May, on Palestinian healthcare in the West Bank since the start of Ramadan. Two senior doctors were killed in their homes: one was Gaza’s only neurologist, who died along with his five children, and the other was Dr Ayman Abu al-Ouf, the Shifa Hospital’s head of internal medicine and coronavirus response.
The bombing of roads has also restricted access for ambulances, which are unable to get to hospitals. Israel has closed off all crossing points for goods and people into Gaza since 10 May. Since Israel remains the occupying power in Gaza, it has the legal responsibility for the humanitarian crisis there. Will the Minister join me in demanding that Israel ensures full continued access for humanitarian goods and personnel?
I hope noble Lords agree that the extent of the expansion of illegal settlements in east Jerusalem, the forced eviction of Palestinian families from their homes, the brutality against civilians, the bombing of hospitals and Covid test centres and the halting of aid deliveries does not in any dictionary constitute Israel’s right to defend itself. It also cannot be called a clash between two equal sides; we must recognise that one side is an occupier and the other is occupied.
As noble Lords may know, in the last few days peace-loving people right across the world, of all faiths and none, have taken to the streets condemning the actions of the Israeli Government. I attended one of those protests in London side by side with some members of the British Jewish community in solidarity with the Palestinian people, who condemned the Israeli Government’s actions and reiterated that this has no place in their faith—or any other faith, for that matter; this is not about religion.
We cannot allow this bloodshed to continue. It has gone on for more than 70 years, with regular flare-ups. It must stop urgently, before it becomes a human catastrophe. We must condemn violence against innocent civilians on all parts, and every effort must be made to end further loss of life and find peace in the region based on coexistence and mutual respect. In the context of the Queen’s Speech and the present situation in Palestine, can the Minister tell the House what the British Government are doing, using our position as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, to bring an end to this violence, address the human rights suffering and, for long-lasting peace, implement the two-state solution?
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, two things struck me about the gracious Speech. The first was the sense of stability and reassurance offered to the nation by Her Majesty the Queen. The second was the ambition of the programme she announced.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the integrated review. For the first time in decades—perhaps ever—the Government have pulled together all the threads of foreign and security policy. Ministers are to be congratulated. It is the work of a Government determined to seize the opportunities presented by Brexit.
Some have expressed surprise at the Government’s success in the May elections. Usually, a governing party will lose seats after so many years in power, but the 2019 general election was as much a break with the past as any change of ruling party. The people brought to power the first Brexit Government—and with a stonking majority. The May elections reinforced their decision. Some say that this is no more than a passing “vaccine bounce”, yet no less an authority than Michel Barnier has said that Brexit gave the UK the means to vaccinate its population long before our neighbours in the EU. That same confidence and boldness has given us the integrated review, which in turn has given us a coherent framework in which to realise global Britain.
Global Britain should not be hard to understand. It is deeply embedded in our DNA: a sovereign nation with allies and partners around the globe—some new, some old—tied together by free trade, common security and common interests; a nation of firm principles, tempered by pragmatism. This year, 2021, is the year of the summits. It will give us many opportunities to apply these principles. We will be at the centre of international negotiation.
Take these three examples. First, we hold the presidency of the G7; the summit will take place in Cornwall next month. The Prime Minister will lead the debate on issues of the highest importance to our world. We will create nothing less than a 21st-century version of the rules-based system of international order, which has served us so well. Secondly, we will host COP 26, in November, in Glasgow. For some, this is the issue of our time. Once again, it will be our task to lead discussions and seek agreements.
Thirdly, this month, HMS “Queen Elizabeth” will sail east, at the head of an international naval force. It will be a clear demonstration of Britain’s tilt to the Indo-Pacific region, where we have growing commercial and security interests. We have already applied for membership of the CPTPP. Our impressive Secretary of State for International Trade has already signed a co-operation agreement with Japan, along with 66 other countries. Now, it is the turn of the Royal Navy, with allied ships, to uphold freedom of navigation in international waters.
The notion that, after Brexit, the UK would shrivel into a lonely, inward-looking island was always a fool’s delusion—the denial of centuries of history that long pre-date the European Union. It was the great 19th-century Foreign Secretary, Lord Palmerston, who showed us the way ahead when he said:
“We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”—[Official Report, Commons, 1/3/1848; col. 122.]
Finally, I welcome my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister and congratulate him on his excellent speech. I also want to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, on her introduction to this debate.
Lord Walney (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will briefly preface my prepared remarks by urging the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who is almost in his place, to spend a little more time studying the Christian Bible. This is not simply because I hope he would be challenged to greater tolerance by the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ, as set out in the gospels, but to show him the inconsistency of taking the passages in the Koran that justify violence as representative of that great faith, while ignoring similarly troubling passages in various parts of the Bible, which is similarly viewed by many Christians—I count myself as one—as the literal word of God. If he genuinely wants to combat the very real threat of Islamism in the UK, and across the world, rather than to rabble-rouse and sow division, I urge him to reflect, though I do not imagine that he will.
I also express my real discomfort at the way that many are choosing to discuss the Israel/Hamas conflict that is continuing to unfold. Much of the commentary from people in positions of influence and responsibility, including disproportionately from members of my former party, implies an equal legitimacy between the armed forces of the democratic state of Israel and the Islamist terror organisation that is dedicated to murdering Jews and wiping Israel off the map. Hamas deliberately embeds its forces in the densest civilian areas in Gaza and its rockets are targeted to maximise civilian casualties. Both of these are clear war crimes. Commentators imply that Israel is less legitimate because it has—thank God—developed the means to defend itself from many, though sadly not all, of the rockets raining down on its cities. We then hear some of the same voices having the hutzpah to express shock at the sickening anti-Semitic violence and harassment unleashed on British streets—anti-Semitism which they themselves have fanned. We all have a responsibility here, and I am afraid to say that Labour is, unfortunately, showing that it still has a long way to go to get its house in order after the rampant anti-Jewish racism of the Corbyn years.
I turn to the gracious Speech, with less time that I originally envisaged. I urge Ministers to be bold and sustained in the measures that they bring forward to
“shape the open international order of the future”—
as they put it—and defend and rebuild a global consensus on the primacy of the rule of law. This is a major undertaking that will require the laudable increase in defence investment to be sustained and increased further in the years ahead. It requires dedicated and focused leadership, as well as sustained diplomacy, which has been sadly lacking for much of the last decade. The commitment to developing the global anti-corruption sanctions regime outlined in the gracious Speech is an important example of this. A new sanctions regime is very welcome, but it will only make a real difference if the UK shows that it is prepared to apply sanctions widely, not only to well-established kleptocracies such as President Putin’s Russia but to deter China from continuing down the road of mass persecution, harassment of lawmakers and the trashing of its international agreements.
The commitment to counter state threats is also welcome, and I hope that due consideration will be given to extending this to the disinformation capabilities that are an established and increasingly sophisticated element of state-led campaigns to disrupt our lives and weaken our democracy. As noble Lords would expect, this is an area that I am examining as part of my review for the Prime Minister and Home Secretary into political violence and the anti-democratic fringes of UK domestic politics.
I did have more to say, but I will respect the five-minute limit and save it for another day.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, this is the first time I have had the pleasure of being in the Chamber for well over a year. The help and service from all those who have kept Parliament going during the pandemic has been quite splendid. In particular, the IT support team has been more than invaluable to me. Under such pressure, Parliament and government departments have served this country well.
The noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, made a marvellous maiden speech about where we are today, particularly tilting towards where he feels developments in the Pacific Far East will be. I get the daily shipping statistics and can tell the House that the speed and acceleration of trade in what would be described as the supply chain is moving rapidly in that direction. It has been moving that way for the last 10 years.
The key word in Her Majesty’s most gracious Speech about the defence of the realm was “modernisation”. Following the outcome of the recent elections, the Prime Minister spoke about levelling up and said that we must deliver. This is fundamentally important. Over the years, many promises have been made but rarely delivered by whomever was in government. This lack of delivery extends on a much wider front than just to our armed services.
Productivity is crucial. We have an abundance of entrepreneurial talent throughout Great Britain, but are in serious danger of stifling such endeavours through unnecessary bureaucracy, regulatory requirements and increasing legal interventions. The free-world democracies all seem to suffer from the same problem. It is worth remembering that, towards the end, the USSR also enjoyed the same overwhelming bureaucratic arthritis.
In practice, all societies need the possibility of some form of control. The reverse seems to be the tendency in our armed services. Our finest and brightest young men and women are joining because they wish to be part of an exciting and rewarding future. Personnel and workforce structures must be transformed to reflect modern society. Our chiefs and senior civil servants must have the authority to make rapid procurement decisions and cut through the bureaucratic labyrinths. Defence procurement delivers late at a price we cannot afford. Major delays always lead to greater costs and, more importantly, endanger the lives of those serving on the front line.
As we accelerate out of the pandemic, for the first time in a generation we have the opportunity truly to reassert global Britain, with all the elements of government truly pulling together and leading from the front. If we do not level up, deliver and modernise, we will not bring our people with us. We will be dead in the water. If there were ever a time that our island peoples desperately want and need to believe that we can have a successful future, it is now.
As many other Peers have already mentioned, our nation’s flagship, HMS “Queen Elizabeth” is assembling its task force to depart in a few days’ time. It is the very embodiment of this Government’s investment and ambitions. We can succeed, and we will.
There is vast experience in this House in understanding the needs of both our foreign service and our armed services. This huge reservoir of knowledge should play an influential part in helping the other place with its decisions. I totally support the request from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, to have a full two-day debate in this House on the role of defence; many of us have requested that for several years. It is hugely important if we are not to be caught unawares in future.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for introducing today’s wide-ranging debate on the Queen’s Speech. I enjoyed the maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister. He has developed something of a reputation for bringing order out of chaos. I am sure that we will benefit from that. Skills like that are always needed. As ever, this debate shows the huge range and depth on defence and international affairs in your Lordships’ House.
My noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham has covered defence, so I will not expand on that here, except to note that noble Lords welcomed extra spending on defence, but expressed concern at the cuts in the Armed Forces—of course, as ever, there were not enough frigates for the noble Lord, Lord West—and the extraordinary decision to increase the number of our nuclear warheads at the same time as we are urging others to decrease theirs, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out.
My noble friends Lord Alderdice and Lady Ludford point out that now we are out of the EU, our relations with the bloc—for example, in relation to Northern Ireland—count as foreign affairs. There is a huge EU- shaped hole in the Queen’s Speech—our closest neighbours. The EU appears to be invisible, like an embarrassing relative, as it also was in the integrated review. At least, finally, we have recognised the EU ambassador.
The Queen’s Speech mentions trade with the Indo-Pacific, the Gulf and Africa. Of course, being in the EU never stopped trade with any of these regions. Leaving does not necessarily open up more opportunities. We hear that even exports of chicken to southern Africa are adversely affected. We rolled over the EU agreement, so we get no additional advantage. Because the Government will not confirm EU standards, the southern African bloc is saying that it will put huge tariffs on UK imports. In this, it seems we go backwards. My noble friend Lord Chidgey makes clear that we do not help things by cutting bilateral assistance to so many African countries.
The Queen’s Speech states that the Government will implement the integrated review. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has given us a wonderful aim that should underpin that review—“pre-emptive reconciliation”. It is not in there and it needs to be. Of course, as we have heard, the Speech says that we,
“will continue to provide aid where it has the greatest impact on reducing poverty and alleviating human suffering.”
That of course is a supreme irony and double-speak. A number of noble Lords referred to this, and my noble friend Lord Purvis drew a powerful contrast between what the Government say are their values and what they are actually doing. We are even cutting funding for landmine clearance, as my noble friend Lord Campbell pointed out. Here we are, pulling out of Afghanistan, saying that we are not abandoning the people there—yet we cut landmine clearance. The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, pointed to this in Africa. We have made cuts to those who are starving in Yemen, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, noted. We are cutting our contribution on family planning by 85%, while we say we are upholding the rights of women and girls, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, noted.
We also hear in the Queen’s Speech that the Government
“will take forward a global effort to get 40 million girls across the world into school.”
That is great, but the Foreign Secretary has admitted that they have cut their contribution to girls’ education by 40% since 2019.
We have cut our contribution to the eradication of polio by 95%. This is only the second disease where the world has got close to eradication. How could we do this?
The Queen’s Speech says:
“My Government will build on the success of the vaccination programme to lead the world in life sciences.”
But the vaccine programme drew on ODA money to the Jenner Institute for the Ebola vaccine, which then laid the foundations for the vaccine programme now. Yet we are cutting that funding. Can the Minister confirm how large the ODA cut to R&D is and whether the Government have made an assessment of the impact on our universities, if nothing else? I recall, from when I was in DfID, the programmes we supported to prevent diseases crossing species in Asia. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, has told us clearly what has happened to those programmes.
We hear in the Queen’s Speech:
“My Government will uphold human rights and democracy across the world.”
Yet we are hearing of cuts to the programmes in just these areas. The noble Lord is Human Rights Minister. Can he clarify how deep these cuts are? I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, as LGBT envoy, but I ask the Minister: has the budget here been cut? Do the Government think it does not matter whether what you say matches what you actually do? The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds put this so well: we need to interrogate the language and measure rhetoric against observed behaviour.
Can the Minister tell us when the FCDO will be transparent about what it is doing and publish the details, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, my noble friend Lord Purvis and others have asked? Many noble Lords have asked exactly when the Government will deliver again on 0.7% of GNI for aid. As the most revered Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury so rightly said, it does indeed sound like St Augustine on chastity.
The cuts make the integrated review ring hollow. We had a debate about this, and it is clear to me that the Government wrote the integrated review before they knew those cuts were going into place. It drives horses and carts through the whole of the integrated review. The integrated review talks about the UK as an aid superpower and a soft power superpower, a phrase the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, repeated. It said that we are world-leading in our soft power. But, as I say, these cuts blow a hole through that.
The Speech refers to the G7, with the focus being to
“lead the global effort to secure a robust economic recovery from the pandemic.”
Does the Minister agree that the world’s economy will not recover until all are vaccinated, and will he explain how the UK can lead the world in ramping this up? The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, points out that we have not given the vaccines required, and my noble friend Lady Sheehan has asked why the UK has blocked efforts of the WTO to allow a temporary TRIPS waiver. We can so easily see the continuing pandemic effect on us, if nobody else. Despite our own vaccination programme, the devastation in India is already having its effect on our economy and society.
I welcome—I am sure noble Lords will be pleased to know—the statement in the Queen’s Speech on COP 26, but can the Minister explain how each government department will be addressing climate change? For example, can he tell me whether UKEF will now fully stop supporting fossil fuel development and what DIT’s role might be?
Noble Lords have ranged across the world in their contributions. We face so many challenges globally: Cyprus, flagged by my noble friend Lord Sharkey; human rights in China, flagged by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others; our reduced engagement in the Balkans, flagged by the noble Baroness, Lady Helic; many conflicts in Africa, flagged by my noble friend Lord Chidgey, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others; Ukraine and Belarus, addressed in the moving speech of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes; Iran, Russia and Armenia. The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, is surely right that Afghanistan will be a test of whether we really are supporting women, peace and security. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper—wonderfully, as ever—reminded us of Latin America. In this year of COP 26, we must be aware of how vital it is to engage in this region.
A number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Alderdice, Lord Palmer, Lady Ludford, Lord Hussain and Lady Sheehan, spoke about the terrible conflict in Israel/Palestine. The noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, and my noble friend Lord Alderdice warned us that we know and we therefore cannot hide. All urged the Government to be more proactive in taking forward a cessation of violence. Can the Minister clearly confirm that we regard settlement activity as illegal and that Israel is an occupying power in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, and has duties as a result which do not include removing people from their homes? Will he confirm that we will not move our embassy to Jerusalem and that Jerusalem needs to be the shared capital of Israel and the Palestinian state? Will he acknowledge that there is an inequality of power between occupied peoples and a state and that the world must be far more proactive in seeking a solution in the interests of both the Palestinians and the Israelis? The intercommunal conflict in Israel is a chilling warning and I would like the Minister to say at last that the UK accepts that it is now the right time to recognise Palestine, as almost 140 other countries now do. I think we will hear the tired old formulation “When the time is right”—and it never is.
There is a huge gulf between what the integrated review and now the Queen’s Speech say and what the Government are actually doing. I have never seen such a gulf before. This has been a very wide-ranging debate and I really look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, on his maiden speech. I look forward to many more of his contributions. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for her introduction to this debate. It is a pleasure that I can now respond to her speech rather than her responding to mine, so I shall take that opportunity.
In his speech, my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe said that when it comes to defence there is too often a wide gap between what Ministers say and what Ministers do. Sadly, this applies to elements of the gracious Speech. In one breath it talks of the global effort to get 40 million girls across the world into school and in another it cuts the ODA budget for girls’ education by up to 40%. We read of reinforcing the UK’s commitment to NATO, while the Government moves recklessly out of step from the alliance by increasing the number of nuclear warheads.
It is impossible to reconcile the statement that the Government will continue to provide aid to reduce poverty and alleviate human suffering with the decision to abandon the commitment to spend 0.7% of GNI on ODA. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, said, it is incomprehensible that such a change in the law is not put to a vote. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, reminded us, slashing aid to Yemen—the world’s worst humanitarian crisis—by 60% without conducting an impact assessment is not only cruel but dangerous. The Government’s message that providing aid where it has “the greatest impact” is entirely the right one, but girls’ education, nutrition, water and sanitation do exactly that and yet are being cut.
For the last five years the UK has funded UNAIDS to the tune of £15 million annually but this year it plans to give only £2.5 million. These drastic cuts to a very low-cost, high-impact agency mirror those that other organisations doing critical work in the HIV response are facing too. The cuts hurt its work to help girls’ education and empowerment and lessen its ability to help countries, including the UK, to end HIV and AIDS, furthering the continuation of a pandemic that threatens us all. Bilateral nutrition projects have an enormous multiplier effect and address myriad other issues such as healthcare and pandemic preparedness. If there is one lesson to be learned from this pandemic, it is that both local and global solutions are necessary. On ODA, the Minister told us in December that
“we intend to bring forward legislation in due course”.
If the Government’s plans have changed, can he tell us on what basis? What is their opinion now?
The Queen’s Speech makes reference to upholding human rights and democracy across the world, yet too often the Government have shown a reluctance to act, as evidenced so well by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. My noble friend Lord Foulkes has raised the issue of Belarus, where civil society is under constant attack. To echo the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, if the Government are serious they must also be more ambitious in strengthening the role of civil society in the international order, because when nations fail in their most important task—providing safety, security and freedom for their people—it is always civil society that leaps first to their defence. That is why it is so important that we strengthen the role of civil society in our multilateral institutions. We need to continue to support women’s groups, trade unions and LGBT groups. I too welcome the work of the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, in his new role as a champion of LGBT rights.
In addition, we need a Government who will properly uphold the rule of law, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds said. Standing up for our values means supporting a rules-based order and respecting international courts, but too often this Government disregard the authority of the institutions for short-term political whim. If we continue to support them only when it is convenient to do so, it is certainly not the UK and our closest allies that will benefit.
We read in the gracious Speech of measures to
“ensure that support for businesses reflects the United Kingdom’s strategic interests”.
If the Government are truly committed to making sure that business in the UK aligns with our values and interests, there can be absolutely no excuse for failing to implement the recommendations of the Russia report. Three years on from the Salisbury attack, the Government have failed fully to implement the recommendations set out in it. Up to half the money laundered out of Russia is still coming through the UK. Can the Minister explain why the necessary legislation was not brought forward in the gracious Speech?
On Hong Kong, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said, we have still yet to see any sanctioning of officials responsible for human rights abuses and the dismantling of its autonomy. That is despite the arrest of 100 pro- democracy activists under the national security law and a further 10,000 on other protest-related charges. Can the Minister confirm when such sanctions will be brought forward to match those introduced by our allies, particularly the United States? He has repeatedly said that we will work in co-operation with the US on these issues, but I see very little evidence of that.
The role of Beijing in human rights violations is sadly not limited to its involvement in Hong Kong, as other noble Lords have said, and we must stand firm also in support of the persecuted Uighur Muslims. I deeply regret that the Government blocked an amendment to the Trade Bill, which I tabled in this House, to ensure that our trade agreements respect human rights. Given concerns that UK businesses may still be connected to ongoing persecution, when will this House be presented with legislation to strengthen Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act, so that all companies will have a responsibility to prove that their supply chains are free of forced labour?
I have raised on previous occasions the situation in Colombia. The noble Lord will know, as penholder in the UN, of the reports of increased violence, much of which has been committed by Colombian police and government officials and which is undermining the right to protest. Will the noble Lord review aid and training to support the Colombian police and suspend any element linked to human rights abuses?
On hosting the G7 summit, the Queen’s Speech refers to
“the global effort to secure a robust economic recovery from the pandemic.”
However, this will require far greater co-operation and leadership than is currently on the table. President Biden has put forward proposals, and now the onus is on the UK and others to respond. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government have held any preliminary discussions with President Biden’s Administration on the global tax proposals?
If we are to recover from the pandemic, we must first bring the virus under control everywhere, and that means ensuring widespread access to vaccines. The UK’s support for COVAX is welcome, but it looks to vaccinate only 20% of countries’ populations, with no plan to achieve full worldwide vaccination. Low-income countries have received less than 1% of all Covid-19 vaccines so far. COVAX also does not currently have any concrete plan substantially to increase vaccine manufacturing to ensure sustained supply, as my noble friend Lord Boateng said. To expand production effectively, we need utilisation and expansion of local manufacturing capacity in low and middle-income countries. Will the Government follow the Biden Administration’s lead and engage constructively to develop a worldwide plan at the WHO on patent issues? In recent days, we have seen the ramifications of the situation in India regarding supplies to the scheme. Can the noble Lord confirm whether this will be on the agenda of the G7? What is the noble Lord’s response to the President’s announcement today that the US will donate 80 million doses to COVAX by the end of June? What is our response to this situation?
Recovery should not be the limit of this Government’s ambition. We must build back better and put forward our vision for a future better than the past. As president of COP 26, we must take the lead and encourage the big emitters to do more to cut their emissions, and support developing countries, which are often the least responsible for climate breakdown but also the most vulnerable to it. What steps are the Government taking to generate support for climate action ahead of the Glasgow summit?
As I said at the start, my issue with the gracious Speech is that the Government’s actions do not match their words. We need a Government who will act to protect our reputation and standing in the world, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, so eloquently put it; a Government who understand that our influence relies on perceptions of who we are as a country. As the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said, we must be a global Britain that stands by its values in all circumstances.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, it is huge privilege for me to address your Lordships’ House on this wide-ranging debate covering many areas. It was a tour of the world as we know it in terms of development and the role of the United Kingdom. I will immediately respond to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, by saying that it is not just the perception of the United Kingdom, but the reality. Our recent influence in standing up for the rule-based international system has been demonstrated by the strong level of support we have seen for British candidates for the prosecutor role at the ICC and for the election of Judge Korner. There are many other examples I could quote.
It would be remiss of me not to recognise the valuable contributions of all noble Lords. I single out my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister. I have known him for a couple of decades or more in different guises—perhaps that reflects our ages. One thing I know is that his devotion and dedication to public service is recognised at local level within London and internationally. I noted in particular his comment that he will hold the Government to account. As the Minister responsible for foreign affairs—and I am sure I reflect the sentiments of my noble friend Lady Goldie—I regard that comment with some trepidation. We look forward to his future contributions.
I also welcome my noble friend Lord Herbert to his new role. I cannot find him in his place. There he is—this is the challenge of an ever-evolving House. I hope we will get back to a degree of normality. I welcome my noble friend’s appointment; I wish him well in his new role, and look forward to working very closely with him on the important agenda for which he is responsible.
In thanking all noble Lords, I recognise the importance of this debate and the richness of the contributions. There was, of course, much challenge to the Government. I, as the Minister responsible for foreign affairs and development affairs in your Lordships’ House, along with the Minister for Defence recognise not just the richness of this debate but the value, expertise and insight that your Lordships provide in challenging the Government and in shaping the future direction of our great country.
We have had recognition of the various issues. I made a particular note of the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds. He spoke of his Church experience. A cleric—a priest or a vicar or a representative of any faith—has to make sure that what they say is reflected in their deeds. As a Minister in the Government, I assure him that I share some of those sentiments quite directly. I also recognise the importance of the role we are now playing on the world stage through the creation of the FCDO. I welcome the response from my noble friends Lord Northbrook and Lady Meyer who recognised the importance of this merger. It has brought together diplomacy and development in a way that has strengthened the role of the United Kingdom on the world stage.
On ODA, I recognise the important role my noble friend Lady Sugg has played. Questions were asked by the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Purvis, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and others. Of course it was regrettable that we had to reduce the commitment made in legislation by a Conservative-led Government from 0.7% of GNI but, as has been said before, it is our stated intent to return to that figure at the earliest opportunity. Notwithstanding the challenges and cuts that have had to be endured on programmes, we approached this in the FCDO by looking at core projects and ensuring that we retain equity and our leadership on the world stage. We will now be spending more than £10 billion, which is still among the highest of our G7 partners, on the important area of development around the world.
As we continued through the debate, I made different notes. My noble friend Lady Hooper provided insights on Latin America, which are always well-recognised, and questions were asked about the importance of our relationships within the European Union by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. I say to her that we value our relationship with key partners in the EU, as demonstrated by the attendance of the leading official from the European Commission on Foreign Affairs at the G7. We participate with the European Union quite directly on the key issues and challenges we are facing, including the Covid challenge and the environment. This is a year of global leadership, as has been recognised by several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Meyer, and we are putting at its heart the health response and the challenges around COP 26, and focusing attention on these important issues.
The integrated review has set out our Prime Minister’s vision for a stronger, more prosperous union in 2030 and outlined the actions we will take, at home and abroad, to realise that vision in a more competitive age. In this regard there are four key areas we will be focusing on.
I will now seek to address many of the questions raised by noble Lords. From the outset, as the Minister with responsibility for the Commonwealth, the United Nations and our multilateral policy, I will say that I recognise the important contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, among others, stressing the importance of the rules-based international system. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that we are putting it at the heart of our response in our support for international institutions, including the International Criminal Court. Whether it is at the United Nations, through our current role as Commonwealth Chair-in-Office, in NATO, or at the Human Rights Council, the G7 or COP 26, that underlines the strength of global Britain today.
We are focused on many different areas, but I will cover some of the issues and our relationships. My noble friend Lord Risby talked about the importance of our relationship with the US. The US remains a central and key partner to our relationships across the world, whether through multilateral organisations or by co-ordinating across a range of foreign policy issues, including on Iran, Russia, China and Myanmar. We also welcome the US reaffirming its commitment to NATO, re-joining the Paris Agreement on climate change and remaining in the World Health Organization, and the £4 billion commitment to COVAX which has been made. I assure noble Lords that, at the very highest level, through President Biden and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and Secretary of State Blinken, and others, we are dealing with the US directly on a range of different priorities.
China was understandably raised by many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord King, who spoke of the challenges around cyber, and my noble friends Lord Jopling and Lady Fall. I assure noble Lords that, yes, we have got a relationship with China; it is vital we establish a relationship with China. There are many issues we discuss within the context of our P5 membership of the UN Security Council. We face some challenges where, without China, we will not achieve our ambitions, including climate change.
We want to build a trade relationship in the medium to long term with China. However, that will not prevent us calling out the disagreements we have and the abuses of human rights we have seen in places such as Xinjiang. And it will not stop the steps we have taken to ensure the rights of BNOs within Hong Kong. As many noble Lords will know, we have taken specific actions through the global human rights sanctions regime against four Chinese Government officials and one entity responsible for serious human rights violations in Xinjiang. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, again asked about future sanctions policy with respect to Hong Kong and other areas. We keep the situation under review, but I am not going to suggest what may happen in the weeks and months ahead. My noble friend Lady Fall asked a specific question about the NSC subgroup on China. Our policy towards China, as my noble friend will be aware, is agreed by the NSC and is reviewed regularly.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, asked a question about security partnerships in the world and the recent statements made by New Zealand. It is of course for New Zealand to determine its own policy towards China, as we the UK Government have our own approach. Recently, the Foreign Minister of New Zealand has confirmed again that New Zealand is not hesitant but recognises the value of the Five Eyes partnership.
Looking further afield, my noble friend Lady Helic raised the issue of Russian activity in the Balkans and what we can do as a Government. I assure my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that I totally accept the point that civil society has a central role to play in building new sustainable societies, and the Balkans is no exception. The Government have played an important role—including on preventing sexual violence in conflict, an area I cover on behalf of the Prime Minister. We will continue to work with key partners, including NATO, the EU and civil society, in this respect.
I turn to science and technology. In his excellent maiden speech, my noble friend referred to the importance of cyber and technology. We seek to strengthen the UK’s place at the leading edge of science and technology, which is essential to our prosperity agenda, competitiveness and security.
The noble Lord, Lord St John, talked about the role of the Commonwealth. I assure noble Lords that we have taken specific action to strengthen the response to cyber challenges and have invested quite directly in cybersecurity through the Commonwealth, particularly for smaller, vulnerable island states.
We are looking at strengthening open societies, human rights and free trade through our important relationship with the EU. I was delighted that we were joined by my noble friend Lord Frost earlier. To those—including the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford—who challenge that Europe is not important to us, I say that here we have a Minister appointed to the heart of government, in the Cabinet, responsible for our relations with the European Union. It comes back to those points. It is not just words but action.
We will deepen our ties in the Indo-Pacific, Africa and the Gulf. The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, among others, raised the important role we will continue to play in Africa. Let us not forget that Africa has a number of important Commonwealth countries, and that relationship will be taken to new levels. We will work towards dialogue partner status at ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and are looking forward to early accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.
We will also lead action to reinforce and reshape the international order of the future to ensure that the United Kingdom is at the heart of areas such as space and cyberspace. I assure noble Lords that we will reaffirm our commitment to strengthening democracy and human rights across the piece. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, talked about some elements of this, particularly with regard to the situation in Belarus. We have called out the suppression of journalists. I note quite carefully some of the points that he raised, including the important work of my noble friend Lord Blencathra in this respect. I look forward to working with him specifically on some of the more sensitive issues, particularly on some of the individual cases.
On the current situation between Azerbaijan and Armenia, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, we are well aware of the allegations from both sides that war crimes have been committed. We have urged relevant authorities to investigate and understand the situation on the ground. I know my colleague, Minister Morton, is working very hard in this respect and has visited the area directly and had discussions with all sides.
I have addressed the issue of the EU quite directly, and I hope my comments have provided some reassurance to both the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds and the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, about the importance we continue to attach to our relationship with the European Union. I am glad the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, recognised the diplomatic status we have extended to the EU representative to the United Kingdom. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and others continue to work closely not just with the likes of France and Germany; we are committed to wider partnerships within the EU. My right honourable friend recently met Nordic and Baltic counterparts to see how we can strengthen our rights further. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, also asked about citizens’ rights. In the interests of time, and that being more of a Home Office lead, I will write to her.
I assure my noble friend Lord Northbrook on the specific issue of the overseas territories and our preparation. They are part of the British family. We have helped them during the Covid challenge and supplied vaccines directly, and we stand ready for any challenges that may be faced by the overseas territories, and indeed the wider Caribbean, as the hurricane season comes forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, again a great champion of human rights, talked rightly about the emerging situation in Tigray, particularly in respect of sexual violence. I assure him that only this week I have reviewed quite specifically the situation on the ground. We are looking to deploy our team of experts shortly to ensure that we can collect and start collating evidence to allow for successful prosecutions at the appropriate time.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, talked of the situation in north Cyprus. I assure him directly that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is engaged very much on this agenda, and we work closely on the issue of Cyprus more generally with the United Nations.
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury rightly raised the important issue of conflict stabilisation and mediation. He used the word “reconciliation”; there is no better word. That is now very much structured within the work of the FCDO, and we will see how we can further strengthen our work in this respect. It is important that we bring communities together.
In this case, the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, talked about conflict management and resolution, supporting refugees within Africa. We will continue to work with key partners, including the African Union. My noble friend Lord Naseby talked about the importance of reconciliation with Sri Lanka, which I was due to visit in the coming few days—unfortunately, the national lockdown there has prevented me from making that visit next week. Nevertheless, I am engaging directly with the new Government—but we stand by the strength of our resolution, passed at the Human Rights Council.
In talking about conflict resolution, I come to the important issue of the Middle East and the current situation on the ground in Israel and Palestine. Of course we deplore the continuing cycle of violence; we have been at the forefront of stating this at the UN Security Council. I assure my noble friend Lord Polak and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that we will stand up and speak out strongly against anti-Semitism. Anyone who seeks to target any community in the United Kingdom should be called out: anti-Semitism has no place in the UK—indeed, no faith should be targeted, across the United Kingdom.
I also assure the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, and my noble friend Lady Warsi that we have called for an immediate ceasefire in this conflict. As he said, it is important that we recognise access in relation to humanitarian support. I am sure that we all have our personal reflections, and it is clear that the United Kingdom’s position has not changed. Settlements are illegal, and the only way to resolve this—for the long term, for a sustainable, peaceful solution—is a secure, safe Israel, living side by side with an independent, sovereign Palestinian state. I assure all noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Warsi, that that remains central to our work.
I turn briefly, in the very limited time left, to defence. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Goldie will reflect on the important contributions made. In this respect, I assure my noble friend Lady Anelay of our continued commitment to Afghanistan. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, rightly raised the issue of our role, particularly in relation to demining. My noble friend Lady Hodgson and the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, spoke in support of the work that we have done to date—but it is a challenge, and, in the continuing negotiations that take place on the ground, it is important that we do not lose the gains that have been made. However, the Taliban’s continued co-operation is a key area of concern, and, as the Minister responsible for Afghanistan, I am engaging directly with key interlocutors, including President Ghani and Foreign Minister Atmar.
We will take a more robust approach to security; I assure all noble Lords in this respect. This includes the £85 billion that we are spending on new defence equipment and support in the next four years alone, driving forward modernisation—my noble friend Lord Sterling in particular noted the importance of modernising our defence response—and investing in research and development and our cyber response in our state-of-the-art National Cyber Security Centre. We will continue to work closely with our key allies to further strengthen our response.
I note our commitments to rapid modernisation in shipbuilding and accelerated R&D, and I appreciate the strong support that we have had from the noble Lord, Lord West, on the shipbuilding element. We will continue to reflect on our ambition for defence to be an important part of the global Britain brand.
I turn to some of the specific questions. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked about supply chains. The procurement reform Bill will slash the number of regulations governing public procurement and introduce a single uniform framework that can unleash the potential for public sector innovation and partnership. We are very much committed to the Armed Forces covenant legislation; it will continue to be a key focus of ours to secure a duty of due regard to its principles. I assure the noble Lord, Lord West, that we will invest in assets: our aim is to increase the number of frigates and destroyers beyond the 19 that we currently have by the end of the decade.
Defence modernisation was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord West, and my noble friend Lord Sterling raised the deployment of HMS “Queen Elizabeth”. We are leading the way in driving both capability and modernisation in developing new ways of operating more effectively.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Northover, asked about Armed Forces numbers. I can do no more than point to the response of my noble friend Lord Lancaster. I draw all noble Lords’ attention to his contribution, because it underscored the importance of broader elements of the forces and paid a real tribute to our reservists, who play a phenomenal role in the defence of our interests, across the world. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, that the lessons to be learned should reflect our important duties and obligations to all who serve in the Armed Forces. I noted the points that he raised very carefully and am sure that our colleagues in the MoD will reflect on them.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, raised important questions about national insurance contributions and their impact on veterans. We are working to maximise the employability of veterans and, as we said in our manifesto, we are investing specifically to ensure that the skills invested in our veterans are there for the medium and long term.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, rightly raised the issue, championed by the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, of duty of care, as did other noble Lords. She will know that my noble friend Lady Goldie is aware of and personally engaged in this issue.
If noble Lords will indulge me, in the short time I have I will briefly turn to some other key points on development. I assure noble Lords that I will continue to work in a co-operative manner across your Lordships’ House in ensuring that our development priorities are communicated effectively to the House, in working through the impact of the challenging decisions we have had to make and in ensuring that we continue to fulfil our mandate and obligations on the global stage. Through our presidency, we will revitalise G7 co-operation and are putting women and girls at the heart of our approach. Earlier this month, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary hosted G7 Foreign and Development Ministers face to face for the first time in over two years. We are looking for an integrated approach to foreign policy and international development. The G7 has agreed to tackle pressing geopolitical challenges including, as a number of noble Lords mentioned, the destabilising issue of Russia and particularly its role in Ukraine, as my noble friend Lord Risby pointed out.
The challenge of Covid and the response to it was raised by a number of noble Lords: the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, among others. We are engaging directly in WTO discussions on the intellectual property waiver proposal. Waiving intellectual property rights would not, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe said, be an effective action to boost vaccine manufacturing. That comes directly from some of the manufacturers. We support voluntary partnerships and licensing. As the Minister responsible for India, I know that the work we did to strengthen the contractual relationship between AstraZeneca and the Serum Institute was part and parcel of that process, prior to it being discussed at the World Trade Organization.
We have also invested heavily in the COVAX facility, which is a clear and right decision. With over £0.5 billion of British investment, the COVAX facility was set up so that the most vulnerable countries around the world could access the vaccine, and that is now happening. As of 5 May, COVAX has shipped over 53 million Covid-19 vaccines to more than 120 countries. One of the key practical issues that we need to look at is the logistical challenge in-country, to ensure that, once the vaccines arrive, they can be distributed. That remains a key focus. We are also working closely with other key partners and are delighted by the commitment shown by the United States.
To those who say that the UK is withdrawing, on the contrary—we believe in reforming international institutions but, as our increased contribution to the World Health Organization demonstrates, we stand firmly behind these multilateral organisations. Issues of sexual and reproductive health and rights were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. I assure her that while we have had to make some challenging decisions, such issues will remain very much at the heart of our approach. I have seen the benefit of what they have delivered and argued the point personally within the context of the UN Security Council. As the Prime Minister’s lead on PSVI, that will remain a key area of my focus. I look forward to working with the noble Baroness directly to see how we can continue to sustain a focus on this important area.
In my closing remarks, I assure noble Lords that we will retain our leadership on international development. My noble friend Lady Sugg has pushed me a number of times on clarity, transparency and our obligations. I say to her: patience is a virtue. We have committed to being transparent and will certainly do so. I will seek to be clearer than I have been in ensuring that the impact of the reductions we have had to make are translated.
I hope my noble friend will respect me for saying this, as will the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, among others who I know care passionately about this issue, as many noble Lords do. I assure them that in the reductions we have made, we have sought to sustain the core elements of the programme so that, at the appropriate time, we can scale up and retain the important equities that we have on the ground. That will continue to be our approach. On when we will return to the figure of 0.7%, as I have said before, we will seek to do that at the earliest opportunity. I assure my noble friend that we remain very much committed t, and totally respect our obligations under the Act and to Parliament.
We are promoting the G7 outcomes, protecting freedoms with the OSCE, chairing the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and celebrating 75 years of the United Nations. These reflect our strength whether that is through defence, development or diplomacy. We have now agreed trade deals with 67 countries, including one with the EU. We have announced a new comprehensive strategic partnership with India and, as I said earlier, thanks to our friends in the Asia-Pacific region, we are on track for ASEAN dialogue partner status later this year.
We have also won elections at an international level and, notwithstanding the Covid-19 challenges, we have upped our commitments on issues such as COVAX and girls’ education. We look forward, as I am sure all noble Lords do, to hosting the COP 26 conference on climate change in November this year, alongside Italy. In this respect, we have also acted according to our words by putting £11.6 billion into international climate finance and setting an ambitious 10-point green plan to reach net zero by 2050.
The integrated review has sent a clear message that we are very much joined-up in our thinking and strategic in our approach. The review has also sent a strong message about what we stand for as a country: as an independent actor on the global stage, an active European country but with a truly global perspective. It is a commitment to be more proactive and adaptable; to be more dynamic; to engage with partners and work with civil societies and key Governments. We will call out abuses of human rights through our sanctions policies but also through working with key partners. Whether it is on health, climate or human rights, we will continue to play our central and pivotal role as global Britain on the world stage. It is a commitment of global Britain to work with our allies, and as a force for good. It is a commitment of global Britain that we will proudly take forward in the years ahead.